Atheistic Double Standard?

[Sonofason]

Semantics. If this is so difficult for you just use "absence of" instead of "lack of".

No problem. I understand both concepts quite well. I have been witnessing a debate going on her over the semantics of these words, and I am seeing disagreement. And I'm really just trying to help clear that up. And I thank you for helping me do that.

 

[Searching1981]

Could you please advise what claims atheist make?

Atheism is defined as : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Other than that all bets are off

Atheism is not making the claim, if simply disbelieves your claims because of the complete lack of evidence.

And that in itself is a form of evidence to justify atheism. Proof by exhaustion. The proof runs thus... In about 10,000 years since the concept of god's was first invented not a single fragment of verifiable, falsifiable evidence has ever been offered despite literally billions of people making the claim they have such evidence.

It would only take one fragment of falsifiable evidence to destroy that proof and put am end to atheism at a stroke

I haven't seen this argument in bold in a long time.

If I may humbly interject.

Agnostics are not making a claim: agnosticism defined as uncertain whether God Exists.

Now, this truly is not a claim because saying, "God may or may not exist," does postulate anything. It's not even testable in anyway, it's not even something evidence could do anything with. So, while it is an idea it is not a claim.

But, Atheists (who when I remember this argument find some issue with making claims) do make a claim: the claim is God does not exist. That's a claim in that it postulates a theory or idea. Now, it is an untested claim; you really cannot disprove the existence of God but so what many claims are untested look at physics. I'm not an expert in Physics but I know we really haven't tested the General Theory or Relativity, there are plenty of untested claims on Black Holes....this isn't a criticism of Physics merely making the distinction that a Claim can be tested or untested at the moment.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It matters for rational argument.

Hypotheticals exist in rational arguments.

Absurdity does not make for a good example unless it IS the example.

It's a perfect example. Unless you believe that octopuses need shopping trolleys.

I fail to be accused by straw men flapping in the wind.

I never made a strawman.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I haven't seen this argument in bold in a long time.

If I may humbly interject.

Agnostics are not making a claim: agnosticism defined as uncertain whether God Exists.

Now, this truly is not a claim because saying, "God may or may not exist," does postulate anything. It's not even testable in anyway, it's not even something evidence could do anything with. So, while it is an idea it is not a claim.

But, Atheists (who when I remember this argument find some issue with making claims) do make a claim: the claim is God does not exist.

Actually, this isn't necessarily true. The broad definition of atheism is an absence of belief in God, not necessarily a belief that God does not exist.

That's a claim in that it postulates a theory or idea. Now, it is an untested claim; you really cannot disprove the existence of God but so what many claims are untested look at physics. I'm not an expert in Physics but I know we really haven't tested the General Theory or Relativity, there are plenty of untested claims on Black Holes....this isn't a criticism of Physics merely making the distinction that a Claim can be tested or untested at the moment.

Actually, scientists have tested general relativity by such means as gravitational lensing, the equivalence principle, predicting relativistic time delay and redshift.

 

[Sonofason]

Not necessarily. I don't think that "truly agnostic" is really a meaningful term, but there are definitions of atheism/theism/agnosticism that allow for a "true agnostic" position in the middle that is neither atheistic nor theistic. Though, I don't subscribe to such definitions personally. To me, an agnostic theist a is just as "true" an agnostic as an agnostic atheist. They are both without the claim knowledge and/or certainty, and that's all that's really meant by agnosticism.


You're welcome!

I understand that people often feel that these are important distinctions especially with regard to how they perceive themselves. But in reality, there are only two important distinctions to be made. Either we believe in god, or we dont. If there is no god, it really doesn't matter what anyone believes. If there is a god, these are the only two distinctions that are important, and the sheep shall be separated from the goats.

 

[Willamena]

Hypotheticals exist in rational arguments.

Hypotheticals are useful. Fabrications and fantasy are not.

 

[ArtieE]

Thanks Artie. What would you say is the difference between a weak atheist and an agonstic atheist?

A weak atheist says "I don't believe gods exist and I don't believe gods don't exist." If a person says he's an agnostic atheist it could mean "I don't know and I don't believe gods exist" or it could mean "I don't know but I believe gods don't exist" depending on whether he's a weak or strong atheist. You just have to ask him which he is.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hypotheticals are useful. Fabrications and fantasy are not.

Hypotheticals are fabrications.

 

[Sonofason]

Actually, this isn't necessarily true. The broad definition of atheism is an absence of belief in God, not necessarily a belief that God does not exist.


Actually, scientists have tested general relativity by such means as gravitational lensing, the equivalence principle, predicting relativistic time delay and redshift.

It really doesn't matter. If you do not believe in god, then you are an atheist. If there is a god, those who believe go to heaven. Those who dont, well, they don't.

 

[Sonofason]

A weak atheist says "I don't believe gods exist and I don't believe gods don't exist." If a person says he's an agnostic atheist it could mean "I don't know and I don't believe gods exist" or it could mean "I don't know but I believe gods don't exist" depending on whether he's a weak or strong atheist. You just have to ask him which he is.

Okay fine...that all works for me.

 

[Willamena]

Hypotheticals are fabrications.

Yet another place where we part ways.

 

[ArtieE]

It really doesn't matter. If you do not believe in god, then you are an atheist.

If you don't believe in gods (plural) you're an atheist.

If there is a god, those who believe go to heaven.

Not necessarily. There could be one god but he might have nothing to do with the Christian or Jewish or Muslim god.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It really doesn't matter. If you do not believe in god, then you are an atheist. If there is a god, those who believe go to heaven. Those who dont, well, they don't.

Depending on the God, of course. It could be a God who doesn't reward belief, but action. In which case, belief or no, we have equal shots at getting into heaven. Or it could be a God that rewards skepticism and punishes faith, so atheists would get rewarded while theists suffer. It could be a God who doesn't really care what you believe and just sends everyone to heaven or hell regardless. Or it could be that there is a God but that there is no afterlife, in which case our beliefs (or lack thereof) make no difference.

 

[Sonofason]

If you don't believe in gods (plural) you're an atheist.Not necessarily. There could be one god but he might have nothing to do with the Christian or Jewish or Muslim god.

Point taken.

 

[Sonofason]

Depending on the God, of course. It could be a God who doesn't reward belief, but action. In which case, belief or no, we have equal shots at getting into heaven. Or it could be a God that rewards skepticism and punishes faith, so atheists would get rewarded while theists suffer. It could be a God who doesn't really care what you believe and just sends everyone to heaven or hell regardless. Or it could be that there is a God but that there is no afterlife, in which case our beliefs (or lack thereof) make no difference.

I understand.

 

[1137]

And you never had to remind me, because I never said anything contrary to that.


You tell atheists a sentence that makes no sense?


Do you not understand that an atheist need not state either position?


Do you not know how logical analogies work?

Great, now a lacking belief in gods is being questioned as a necessary aspect of atheism! Fascinating that any discussion with atheists always ends with the position becoming absurd.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Which claim?

 

[dianaiad]

But non believers make no claims

Some do.

....and it depends upon the area in which those claims occur.

For instance, there are those non-believers who are simply that: non-believers. They 'don't believe' in a deity. Now these folks aren't making any claims; they are simply waiting for someone to prove, to their satisfaction, that some deity does exist.

BUT...

There are those atheists who take that one step too far; those who claim 'there is no such thing as a god."

Oops. THAT is making a claim: a very big one, and they've just assumed the burden of proof.


Then of course atheists are just people who have an opinion about religion and deity. These people are just as likely to have weird unsubstantiated beliefs in other areas as any theist: global warming caused mostly by people and the sky is going to fall if we don't stop the evolution of earth's climate cycles in its tracks, ancient aliens, alien abduction complete with anal probes, faster than light travel (oh, wait, I'd like to see that one), telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, dowsing, Obama isn't a true American citizen, Bush arranged the destruction of the Twin Towers, Kennedy was killed by the CIA because he found out that the CIA killed Marilyn Monroe, Clinton arranged the murder of his investment broker, Republicans want to push grandma over the cliff...yadda, yadda, yadda.

I don't see any superior moral, ethical or intellectual superiority in someone simply because he 'doesn't believe' in a deity. 'Course, the same thing is true for theists. I'm an equal opportunity curmudgeon.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Great, now a lacking belief in gods is being questioned as a necessary aspect of atheism! Fascinating that any discussion with atheists always ends with the position becoming absurd.

What's more fascinating is how you manage to accomplish this bizarre non-sequiturs.

 

[Sonofason]

Great, now a lacking belief in gods is being questioned as a necessary aspect of atheism! Fascinating that any discussion with atheists always ends with the position becoming absurd.

No worries. If there is a god, and you believe in the wrong god, you're an atheist. If there is a god and you believe in him, you're a theist. If you lack a belief in any gods and if the god that exists doesn't give a damn what you believe, then who cares anyway.