Atheistic Double Standard?

[jonathan180iq]

Can I just say, nudity is a fashion style...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are wrong...Atheism is the belief that no god exists. And if you claim to be an atheist, it is your duty and responsibility to provide evidence to support this unfounded faith of yours.

Yet here is an atheist that does not claim that no god or gods exist.

And even if I did, I would have no duty or responsibility to support that claim. I might have an incentive to do so if I had a desire to convince you or anybody else that I was correct.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Indeed, and so it would logically follow that if a smoker is someone who smokes, and a theist is someone who does believe in the existence of God and a non-smoker is someone who does not smoke, then an atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of God. An atheist is not someone who lacks belief. That is just a play on words to make the stance seem more reasonable. But the fact is that being an atheist is anything but reasonable, and the games that are played with this word atheism puts them on full display as completely unreasonable.

Aren't you the one playing the game with words? You're trying to force atheists to make a claim that most don't make to use the word "atheist" to describe themselves. and then criticizing them for avoiding what they already know and you seem to agree is an unreasonable position.

Atheists define themselves. We're no more interested in being defined by theists than either liberals or conservatives are interested in being defined by their detractors.

How do you feel about the jihadist's definition of a Christian, which probably usually includes the word "infidel"? Do you accept it, or are you more interested in how you and other Christians define yourselves?

Same here.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can I just say, nudity is a fashion style...

I'm changing that one to "fashion line."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are wrong...Atheism is the belief that no god exists. And if you claim to be an atheist, it is your duty and responsibility to provide evidence to support this unfounded faith of yours.

Incidentally, you just supported my claim that the double standard to which the OP referred is much more commonly the other way around. Look at you demanding evidence from the atheist for an "unfounded faith" that you would impose on him while offering none yourself.

Isn't that a double standard in your estimation?

And you'll notice that nobody (or nearly nobody - I haven't read the whole thread yet) is demanding any evidence from you. We're merely telling you that you don't have have it, and that as skeptics, we don't believe without a reason.

 

[ChristineM]

except that unemployment is a career choice, nudity is a fashion style, and abstinence is a sexual position...

Unemployed is only a career choice if you have control over the matter. Eg, redundancy, liquidation..

Nudity can be a fashion style but not in most cases.

Not sure how "restraining oneself from indulging in sex" is a sexual position, could you please explain?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Let us consider the beginning of the universe. In the beginning God said, "let there be light". Today scientists tell us that in the beginning there was light. Wow...that is quite remarkable. To me, this looks like evidence for the existence of God. We discover this remarkable biblical claim within the first few verses of the Bible, and recently science confirms that it was true.

The biblical creation story is evidence that it's authors knew nothing about how the universe evolved. They got only one thing right: The universe had a beginning, although that is also being questioned now: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

Incidentally, light wasn't first. In the beginning was a superforce that experienced symmetry breaking into gravity and what would become the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces. There was still no light because there were no photons.

Then the strong force split off leaving the electroweak force. There still was no light.

Then the weak force and electromagnetic forces split. Now there were photons.

However, there was only glowing, opaque plasma for a few hundred thousand years. The first light beam appeared thereafter, at about 380.000 years after the beginning.

Now, let there be light.

If successful prophecy is your standard for godlike intelligence, you can't touch science:

"Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?" - Carl Sagan

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm sorry, there is no equivalence that I am aware of between smokers and believers.

I refer to a similarity frequently: Both are comforted by a product that created the need that it comforts.

People tell us that their faith comforts them. If you grow up without religion, you don't need that kind of comforting.

I'm quite comfortable without the promise of immortality, or being special, or being watched over, or thinking that I will see my loved one that are gone again.

Bit the typical theist will tell you that those ideas comfort them. Why? Because they've been prevented from learning to live without those promises.

Can you see the parallel with a smoker that takes a hit of a cigarette and goes, "Ahhhhh!!!" like somebody coming up for air after a minute under water?

 

[Milton Platt]

Speaking in general and in your opinion, do non-believers hold a double standard when it comes to religion?

Such as for example: Demanding religious claims be backed by hard evidence, but then not holding the same standards for their own claims.

Depends upon what you mean by "non-believers". believers of over a thousand other religions are "non-believers" of your own religion. Are those the people you are asking about? Or are you asking about those who simply do not believe you have met a reasonable burden of proof with respect to your own beliefs?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Depends upon what you mean by "non-believers". believers of over a thousand other religions are "non-believers" of your own religion. Are those the people you are asking about? Or are you asking about those who simply do not believe you have met a reasonable burden of proof with respect to your own beliefs?

"believers of over a thousand other religions are "non-believers" of your own religion"

And what religion is that? Are you just assuming I am religious?

 

[Willamena]

Depends upon what you mean by "non-believers". believers of over a thousand other religions are "non-believers" of your own religion. Are those the people you are asking about? Or are you asking about those who simply do not believe you have met a reasonable burden of proof with respect to your own beliefs?

To apply a term relativistically is to destroy any meaningful use it has. You can do for any term.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To be honest I think many in this tread misunderstood the OP, and perhaps I could have worded it better. But the question is not what claim in general do atheist make that is unsubstantiated, but in general do they make claims that are unsubstantiated. And it certainly seems they do, which I consider something of a hypocritical position because of the common and often forceful demand for evidence of God.

After viewing atheist after atheist on these forums making baseless claim after baseless claim, I begin to question the hypocrisy of that position. If you are going to have such a forward and high demand for evidence of God then why not everything else? I was not talking about a specific claim, and if you read my posts you should be able to realize that, I was talking about a general behavior.

You see a double standard where none exists.

Seasoned atheists don't expect the believers to produce evidence in support of their religious beliefs. If one asks for it, it generally means, "You have no evidence, and I require that to believe." Rather than word it like that, which might be inflammatory - people don't like being told their feelings aren't evidence - it will often come out as,"What evidence do you have?" It's rhetorical question

As for providing evidence, it should be remembered that there is no duty to provide evidence unless one is trying to convince another of his position, and it is of no value if that other person doesn't use evidence to make decisions, or has put up a barrier to seeing it as is so often the case with our creationist friends.

Many of the comments I make are ones that I expect most unbelievers to accept and the believers to reject - perhaps a scientific truth that the believer finds problematic, such as what creationists call "macro-evolution." I'm not going to provide any evidence most of the time. It wouldn't be helpful. One group doesn't need it, the other can't benefit from it.

That's a single standard: If you want to convince others that can be convinced by evidence, you will provide it, and probably without being asked. If you're not trying to convince, it's not necessary. That's my standard for myself, for you, and everybody else.

What double here is not a standard, but the two radically different ways of thinking we see - faith based thinking, and reason and evidence based thinking - and the optimal way to interact with each. One will interact differently with a person willing to consider evidence impartially and with the ability and willingness to be convinced by a compelling argument than he will with somebody whose position is faith based. Faith based positions aren't arrived at using evidence, and they don't change in the face of contradictory evidence, so the role of evidence in such an interaction and the incentive to provide it will be different.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Actually every time they claim scripture to be false, ,they are making a argument

A claim is not an argument. Think of a claim as the conclusion to an argument where the rest of the argument was left out.

Here's a claim: Socrates is mortal.

Here's an argument: All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The claim that "there is no god" is not a knowledge claim

I think it is.

Additionally, the claim of atheism is made regardless of whatever you may personally think or claim. It's not about you.

That's an odd comment. Forget for a moment that there is no claim with atheism. You are aware that atheism doesn't actually speak, are you not? Atheists, however, can, and we are free to define ourselves.

So if it's not about me, which sounds like an effort to exclude my definition, who is speaking for atheism here - you?

So from your assertion that, "I am an atheist because I have no god belief," I am entirely satisfied that the criteria of atheism has been met.

Didn't you previously insist that I had to explicitly deny the possibility of gods to meet your criterion for atheism? Maybe you mis-wrote. If not, you appear to be contradicting yourself and agreeing with me here.

That you have no argument, test, measurement, observation, or algorithm to rule gods out is the best reason to declare yourself an atheist.

That's what makes me an agnostic. I am an atheist for the reason I just gave and you just affirmed: Lack of a god belief.

The agnostic to me isn't the person who says, "I don't know," out of ignorance, but out of a careful examination of the capacity to know (gnosis).

Fortunately, we've found our way back to double standards - the one you applied to me when I offered a definition ("It isn't about you"), and the one you just allowed yourself. Do you disagree with that assessment?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think what happens in these kinds of discussions is that it seems to be boxed in by the concept of "god" as commonly presented by religion and limited by the question of whether or not such a being actually exists. It's like we're faced with the choice to either "believe" or "not believe," as if that's the only choice we have.

I think what a lot of religionists often fail to realize is that many of us have already been raised and inculcated in the dominant religion in our society (or at least in America; can't say for other countries). For a variety of possible reasons, atheists and agnostics have chosen to reject or question such beliefs, but that by itself doesn't necessarily indicate an outright claim that "there is no god."

"God" is just a title for someone or something that is viewed as so powerful and so immense that we can't even properly define its nature or properties - or even be certain that it exists (or doesn't exist). It's a concept that's, by definition, outside of human perception or understanding. Nevertheless, humans continue to try to explain the unexplainable by the use of allegories, fables, and myths - but how can anyone really know something so powerful and infinite as "god" is perceived to be? We can't underestimate human imagination and our propensity to just make stuff up out of the blue when we're operating with a limited set of facts.

So, I don't think atheists, even strong atheists, are making any definitive claims when they say "there is no god," at least not as an overall claim about the nature of the universe. It's more a response to human beings who claim there is a god when they can't possibly know either. Some atheists get a bit silly about it and bring up the possibility that the universe was created by the "Flying Spaghetti Monster," although I've always been partial to the Great Pumpkin myself.

Personally, I don't say whether there is or isn't a "god" or "gods," but when someone tries to sell me on their god (or gods), then my first thought is that their "god" probably doesn't exist. It doesn't negate the possibility of the concept itself, but it might take into consideration the intricate complexities of nature and the immense unending vastness of the universe that we can see. To try to simplify all that and sum it up with a single word, "god," something gets lost.

Even if there is some kind of powerful being that created all this, then so what? It seems that we're stuck here no matter what, so who says that we have to do anything about it? Religion makes it seem like we're all here in one big kindergarten (which may not be far from the truth, judging from world events), with "god" supposedly micromanaging everything as part of his grand plan - whatever that may be.

I would agree with most of that. I would disagree with,

"So, I don't think atheists, even strong atheists, are making any definitive claims when they say "there is no god," at least not as an overall claim about the nature of the universe."

My working definition for a god is a sentient agent that creates universes. There are other things called gods not that powerful, like most of the Greek and Viking pantheons, but we're seldom discussing such an entity when discussing whether there is a god or not.

I agree that if there are gods, we don't know about them, and they are either unable or unwilling to be known to us, meaning that the question is moot from a practical perspective. What are you going to do diffrently either way? I think that was one of your points.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Not sure how "restraining oneself from indulging in sex" is a sexual position, could you please explain?

I think he was using a different definition of "position" in the phrase "sexual position." He probably meant it to mean a philosophical position

 

[Stevicus]

To be honest I think many in this tread misunderstood the OP, and perhaps I could have worded it better. But the question is not what claim in general do atheist make that is unsubstantiated, but in general do they make claims that are unsubstantiated. And it certainly seems they do, which I consider something of a hypocritical position because of the common and often forceful demand for evidence of God.

After viewing atheist after atheist on these forums making baseless claim after baseless claim, I begin to question the hypocrisy of that position. If you are going to have such a forward and high demand for evidence of God then why not everything else? I was not talking about a specific claim, and if you read my posts you should be able to realize that, I was talking about a general behavior.

I think that if someone makes a baseless claim, regardless of whatever it is, they're likely to be called on it and asked to cite some evidence or support for their claim. I'm not sure where atheists are making "baseless claim after baseless claim." Perhaps in some political discussions, there might be a certain level of supposition or speculation - along with a lot of opinionated bunkum. But people will still get called on it just the same.

 

[Willamena]

That's an odd comment. Forget for a moment that there is no claim with atheism. You are aware that atheism doesn't actually speak, are you not? Atheists, however, can, and we are free to define ourselves.

So if it's not about me, which sounds like an effort to exclude my definition, who is speaking for atheism here - you?

Atheism is speaking. It's not a literal act, of course, but it speaks very loudly and the message is that there is no God or gods. Atheism is found wherever the message is present, whether explicitly or implicitly stated. And it's an objective message, which is why it happens regardless of the claims of individuals who identify as atheist.

Didn't you previously insist that I had to explicitly deny the possibility of gods to meet your criterion for atheism? Maybe you mis-wrote. If not, you appear to be contradicting yourself and agreeing with me here.

No, I don't recall doing that.

That's what makes me an agnostic. I am an atheist for the reason I just gave and you just affirmed: Lack of a god belief.



Fortunately, we've found our way back to double standards - the one you applied to me when I offered a definition ("It isn't about you"), and the one you just allowed yourself. Do you disagree with that assessment?

My "it isn't about you" was about the message of atheism (see above), not about any definition you may hold of atheism, which I would not contest.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Atheism is speaking.

You ignored or overlooked a post addressed to you with specific questions for you here.

 

[Willamena]

You ignored or overlooked a post addressed to you with specific questions for you here.

I responded to that one here, and you've already replied.