Atheistic Double Standard?

[ImmortalFlame]

"I never said that there weren't."

What you said and I quote was, " As a group, atheists only have one thing in common." Which of course was just a silly thing to say.

How is it a silly thing to say? Name one thing other than their atheism that ALL atheists have in common.

Ah, another baseless claim . . . .

In the OED, the recognized academic standard dictionary there are 9 entries for the word evidence as a noun, and not a single one suggest it is "necessarily an objective fact".

Among them are:







Home : Oxford English Dictionary

This is exactly what I am talking about, you just up and decided to manifest a definition of the word evidence based on nothing but your personal opinion. The sad fact is that you could have very easily used a dictionary to find the actual definition, but instead you just started to make things up.

Or maybe you should understand that definitions only provide descriptive, not prescriptive, definitions of terms. Don't blame me if you choose to use a nebulous definition of the term when it is clear what definition is being intended by the initial request - in the case of evidence for God, obviously an atheist isn't asking for "personal, subjective" evidence, they are asking for objective, empirical evidence. For example, scientific evidence (Scientific evidence - Wikipedia).

There is evidence of God on Pluto, prove me wrong.

I don't have to. The burden of proof is on you.

Maybe you should use the OED to look up unfalsifiable.

"There is no evidence of God" can be falsified by presenting evidence of God. What is confusing to you about that?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're one of the smarter ones. That is correct.

The converse is correct, too. "Believing isn't even a claim to start with as aforementioned. No double standard exists."

Actually, belief is a claim. To believe means "To accept a given proposition as true", so to "believe X" is also to necessarily state "X is true".

 

[ArtieE]

However, that's not what the non-believers, especially the internet atheists, say most of the time. Some say that it's up to the believers to show evidence because they are the ones making a claim. In other words, when someone states they believe, then the non-believer who doesn't won't take that statement as a belief of the believer. Instead, they state it's up to the believer to show evidence of "their claim." That is when the hypocrisy and double standard comes in.

If you say "I believe bigfoot exists" then show me some of the evidence that makes you believe bigfoot exists and if I find your evidence compelling I might also come to believe that bigfoot exists. I don't have to show any evidence for the non-existence of bigfoot.

 

[ChristineM]

So how does it feel to be just like a theist?

Interesting that you only appear to be here to insult and not defend your own ignorance.

 

[ChristineM]

This is wrong. Atheists are usually wrong.

Let's review. Strong atheists claim to disavow the existence of God while the weaker ones claim to believe that God does not exist. Thus, atheists who say that believers have to show evidence of their claims have a double standard and are hypocrites based on their beliefs that Christians are making claims of the God.

Not all non-believers ask for claims of God, so I am only referring to those that do and those are called the internet atheists.

There is no requirement to prove disbelieve in ghost stories

And many atheists ask for proof only when a claim is made for the "fact" or "truth" of the existence of a god. Of course you know non exists even though you are unwilling to admit none exists because it contravenes your faith. This is why you get so frustrated when asked for proof of your claim

Note that as yet no one has ever disproved Einstein's energy/mass equivalence equation which in itself disproves the existence of the god of revelation 19:6 (kjv).

Childhood leukaemia shows that no compassionate God exists

The mosquito shows no designer god exists

I could go on about other scientific and medical evidences that combine to bolster the atheist view.

 

[Skwim]

Interesting that you only appear to be here to insult and not defend your own ignorance.

I think he may have realized just how ignorant his remarks have been or realizes he's backed himself into a corner, and to save face has had to resort to ad homs. Not a particularly unusual tactic around here at all.

.

 

[ChristineM]

I think he may have realized just how ignorant his remarks have been or realizes he's backed himself into a corner, and to save face has had to resort to ad homs. Not a particularly unusual tactic around here at all.

.

Very possible, that's the problem when people make up nonsense and make claim's about that nonsense.

 

[james bond]

If you say "I believe bigfoot exists" then show me some of the evidence that makes you believe bigfoot exists and if I find your evidence compelling I might also come to believe that bigfoot exists. I don't have to show any evidence for the non-existence of bigfoot.

I don't know that much about Bigfoot. The most recent claim that I am familiar is the following. NASA's chief scientist claims that we'll find aliens within ten years without any evidence except for vastness of space and our multi-million dollar telescopic equipment.

 

[james bond]

There is no requirement to prove disbelieve in ghost stories

And many atheists ask for proof only when a claim is made for the "fact" or "truth" of the existence of a god. Of course you know non exists even though you are unwilling to admit none exists because it contravenes your faith. This is why you get so frustrated when asked for proof of your claim

Note that as yet no one has ever disproved Einstein's energy/mass equivalence equation which in itself disproves the existence of the god of revelation 19:6 (kjv).

Childhood leukaemia shows that no compassionate God exists

The mosquito shows no designer god exists

I could go on about other scientific and medical evidences that combine to bolster the atheist view.

I would say paranormal investigator Joe Nickell would disagree with you.

I agree with your first statement to an extent, but the existence of a god isn't a fact. The believers say the existence of God is the truth. You second sentence puts words in my mouth, sounds ridiculous and illogical. It sounds as if you're the one becoming frustrated and is still asking for proof of a claim. Thus, we have established a couple things wrong already.

I'm not sure what you mean? e=mc2 (squared)?

You're making a claim now about childhood leukemia. And that God is not compassionate. What is the connection? Whether one believes in God or not, there will be illness, death and suffering. Thus, you are wrong again.

Another claim without explanation.

Ha ha. I'm still waiting for something I can understand..

 

[james bond]

New believer A: I believe in God and he's made my life for the better.

Supporters of A: That's wonderful. We're all happy for you.

Internet atheist: God does not exist. You made a claim, so where is your proof?

New believer A: Me. I just said he's made my life for the better. Before I didn't believe in God and that led me to a homosexual lifestyle. I had different sexual partners, but wasn't really happy. Someone said I should get married, but then I realized through God's help that I wasn't really homosexual. I now have a girl friend and my life is for the better.

Former Homosexual Reveals 'Unmitigated Disaster of Gay Marriage'

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A few things:

• First, "atheist" was not the best word to use. As has been mentioned many times, even though we are all other things besides atheists - perhaps rational skeptic, humanist, etc.. - and we have many beliefs and opinions that arise from those other things (next bullet point), we make no claims as atheists except that we don't have a god belief, a claim that need not be defended. If you think I'm lying about that, it's fine with me.

• Second, as a rational skeptic and humanist, I have many beliefs, such as that received wisdom should be questioned, ideas should not be believed without a sound reason, science is the best method for understanding physical reality, etc.. Once again, I don't need to defend these ideas unless I'm trying to convince somebody else to believe them as well.

• Third, as implied above, burden of proof is only relevant when one wants one's claims to be believed. It is not a double standard to tell the faith based thinker who wants me to believe in his or her god that I don't believe anything without a reason, and then to tell the Christian what I believe and offer no reasons. Why? Because ...

• Fourth, evidence is irrelevant to somebody who comes to his or her position with out it, that is, by faith, and evidence won't budge them from it. I simply don't offer it to such people. If I do, it is for the benefit of critical thinkers reading along. I'm sure that we're all familiar with the zealous creationist who repeatedly asks for evidence of "macro-evolution" only to dismiss it out of hand unread with comments like, "That was just opinion" or "That was all supposition." I've retired from the business of providing evidence to such people, but would do so for an open-minded, critical thinker. If that's a double standard, then it is a rational one.

• Fifth, an essential requirement to be evidence is that it be evident. It's meaningless to say that one has evidence of God that cannot be demonstrated. As was already mentioned, evidence is something that makes a claim more or less likely. If you feel that you are speaking to a god, and call that evidence, I consider you to have no evidence.

• Sixth, I don't ask the faithful for evidence. I know from experience that they don't have it. I think that when most skeptics ask faith based thinkers what evidence they have, it's a rhetorical question, that is, a sentence ending with a question mark that is more a statement that a request for information. The statement is that I know that you don't have evidence, and rather than make the statement in that form, the poster prefers the rhetorical question.

• Finally, the behavior described by the OP is characteristic of the faithful, not the skeptic. The creationist in particular is the one continually demanding evidence but offering none. And yes, I offer no evidence or argument i support of that assertion. It's a claim - an opinion - one that I expect one cohort of posters to agree with already, and those that don't to be unreachable.

Notice that none of these ideas derive from atheism. That word only tells you what I'm not - not what I am. I am also an avampirist and an aleprechaunist. Similarly, I have absolutely no thoughts that derive from those positions apart from the fact that I don't believe in vampires or leprechauns. And I offer no evidence. Why would I?

So here is my standard, and I believe that I speak for many others. It is a single standard: If you use evidence to make decisions, and I make a claim that I want you to believe or that you want to explore with my help, I will provide it.

But if you routinely disregard evidence, or if I expect that you already agree, or if I don't care if I am believed, no evidence is offered.

I expect no more or less from any other poster, believer or skeptic.

 

[ChristineM]

I would say paranormal investigator Joe Nickell would disagree with you.

I agree with your first statement to an extent, but the existence of a god isn't a fact. The believers say the existence of God is the truth. You second sentence puts words in my mouth, sounds ridiculous and illogical. It sounds as if you're the one becoming frustrated and is still asking for proof of a claim. Thus, we have established a couple things wrong already.

I'm not sure what you mean? e=mc2 (squared)?

You're making a claim now about childhood leukemia. And that God is not compassionate. What is the connection? Whether one believes in God or not, there will be illness, death and suffering. Thus, you are wrong again.

Another claim without explanation.

Ha ha. I'm still waiting for something I can understand..

I would say paranormal woooo, did you known the word gullible is not in the dictionary?

So you agree that believers who say god is true are lying? Nops yky have stomped tour foot in incredulity, there is a difference.

Do the maths, it becomes quite understandable.

If you cannot see that a god who is claimed as compassionate could not produce such suffering in an innocent child then there is a problem with your morality

So you need an explanation of why a designer chooses to make a masterpiece (according to abrahamic religion) then designs an insect to kill his pride and joy?

Your understanding is not required

 

[1137]

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.

Absolutely, I rarely see any situation to the contrary.

But non believers make no claims

Only because they either (a) are being intellectually dishonest or (b) honestly don't understand how belief and metaphysics works. For example, I do not believe that there is a unicorn in my garage, in fact I do not believe there are unicorns anywhere in the real objective world. I don't claim to know there are no unicorns, but I do in fact believe there are none. "Believe there are none" it's the exact same thing as "Lack belief there are any."

Not believing isn't even a claim to start with as aforementioned. No double standard exists.

No but it's a belief, a metaphysical position, and so should either be defensible/explanatory, or discarded.

There's evidence of God?

Of course, there's tons and tons, ranking from "not just unconvincing but plain stupid" to "damn that is convincing," depending on the individuals discussing the evidence.

Actually, belief is a claim. To believe means "To accept a given proposition as true", so to "believe X" is also to necessarily state "X is true".

Then yes, atheism and physicalism both make claims in the sense that they believe X over Y. Well said!

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know that much about Bigfoot.

I know that it's dangerous to play practical jokes on him.

 

[ChristineM]

No but it's a belief, a metaphysical position, and so should either be defensible/explanatory, or discarded.

So not collecting stamps is a hobby?

 

[1137]

So not collecting stamps is a hobby?

Lol wut? You don't understand a verb verses a metaphysical position?

 

[paarsurrey]

I would too -- if they actually made any claims.

If one takes a position consistently, defends it, justifies it , proves all other positions wrong and names/labels/uses it as an umbrella term for one; isn't it a claim? Please
Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"As a group, atheists only have one thing in common - the lack of belief in a God. "

Oh, can you prove this? Can your really prove there are no additional common general trends among atheist?

There is that double standard again.

Of course there are other commonalities. For instance, every single atheist I've ever met has breathed oxygen.

"And where is this evidence?"

I think you confusing sufficient evidence that convinces you with sufficient evidence that convinces other people.

Now I don't find the so called evidence convincing either, but the statement: "There is no evidence of God" is also an unfalsifiable claim.

You can claim to have no evidence which convinces you of God, but to state out right that there is no evidence which convinces other people of God's existence is clearly not true.

Depends on the context. It's complicated by the fact that there are many gods called "God." Referring to God might mean one specific God, more than one, or all of them.

I've been in discussions with theists who actually claim that there is no evidence - sufficient or otherwise - for their God. Some of these theists (e.g. several deists I've encountered) say that belief in their God is justified based on logical arguments, not evidence. Others (usually Christians) say that belief in their God is justified by faith and argue as a tenet of their belief that God denies people evidence of his existence "to preserve free will" or other nonsense.

I could claim a rock on a street was placed there by God or the positions of the stars are evidence of God and you'd have no way to prove it was otherwise. I think some of you forget that unfalsifiability goes both ways.

My take on evidence is that anything that could conceivably be part of the basis for some conclusion is evidence for that conclusion.

This means that, say, the stars are both evidence for and against God (since their existence, combined with other arguments and potential facts, could be used to lead to either conclusion).

That is another the double standard. I agree that God is an unfalsiable claim but so is saying in no uncertain terms is there evidence of God. And you repeating "Where is this evidence?" does not suddenly make the claim falsifiable.

If God is unfalsifiable, this implies that there is no evidence for or against God. Why are you agreeing with one part but not the other?

Personally, if someone says, "I have evidence that convinces me God is real" then I don't see a reason to doubt that. That evidence may not convince me or be of scientific standards but that does not make their statement untrue. I very much believe that they believe they have convincing evidence of God.

Though this doesn't mean that whatever evidence they have is sufficient to demonstrate God rationally, which is kind of the point. I've never met an atheist who disputes the idea that some people sincerely believe in gods for irrational reasons.

 

[ChristineM]

Lol wut? You don't understand a verb verses a metaphysical position?

Ahh, the ad hominem defence. Well done

Disbelief is the opposite of belief... Note the dis

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

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.

In logic the negative belief is the default belief.

Example: I cannot prove that the toothfairy does or does not exist, but since there is no evidence for their existence then I do not bevel in the toothfairy.