Atheistic Double Standard?

[ArtieE]

Since the person who coined the term gave it a definition that disagrees with yours, I think using your definition would create confusion, not avoid it.

"Agnosticism is the philosophical view that it is unknown (or even, unknowable) whether any deities (god or gods) exist or not. Some people who call themselves "agnostic" say that it is not possible for anyone ever to know if there are any deities or not. Other agnostics, though, say only that they themselves currently do not know if there are any deities."
Agnosticism - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the record, I didn't write that in the wikipedia...

 

[jonathan180iq]

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.

At it's core the standard for substantiating claims does not change, regardless of topic.
So if there is a double standard, it's a bad thing. It doesn't matter if the fault lies with atheists, theists, spider-pigs or sasquatches...

But you can only have this conversation on a topic-by-topic basis. How many atheists make (x) claim while not substantiating it? How many make (Y) claim while substantiating it?

(Also, if you can't provide specific examples of this happening, which standard are you following?)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

False equivalencies aren't evidence for god. Although, they very often try to get passed off as such.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Agnosticism is the philosophical view that it is unknown (or even, unknowable) whether any deities (god or gods) exist or not. Some people who call themselves "agnostic" say that it is not possible for anyone ever to know if there are any deities or not. Other agnostics, though, say only that they themselves currently do not know if there are any deities."
Agnosticism - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the record, I didn't write that in the wikipedia...

Though you did pick the simple English version over the standard English one. Could it be because the standard one doesn't support your position?

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God or the supernatural are unknown and unknowable.[1][2][3]

According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, "agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist".[2]

Agnosticism - Wikipedia

 

[ChristineM]

Even more examples of an atheist double standard for your collection, @Jeremiahcp

So you are unable to take your argument of bs and nonsense anmy further, fair enough

 

[ChristineM]

So calling you a theist was an insult?

Nope but you meant it to be.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

No, the claim is that they [atheists] disbelieve or lack of belief in a gods existence.

May i repeat once more

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

Actually if you look through my posts on this thread i have provided 4 evidences that god or gods don't exist

None have anything to do with relativity which as far as i know cannot be used as proof for or against a gods existence

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, the claim is that they [atheists] disbelieve or lack of belief in a gods existence.

That's not quite it.

The claim is that atheism is based lack of belief, not that any particular atheist merely lacks belief in any particular god.

It's the difference between "you don't need to reject belief in gods to be an atheist" versus "no atheists reject belief in gods." They aren't the same thing.

 

[ArtieE]

Though you did pick the simple English version over the standard English one. Could it be because the standard one doesn't support your position?

No, I picked the simple English version because it's simple enough for most people to understand.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I picked the simple English version because it's simple enough for most people to understand.

But you recognize that the quick blurb you quoted is contradicted by:

- the standard English article
- (now that I have a chance to read it) most of the simplified English article
- the definition by the guy who coined the term

... right?

 

[sayak83]

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.

Can we at least examine one claim? Like
Claim A was made by some atheist which is quite commonly held (evidence for this in links).
Claim A does not enjoy the kind of evidence often demanded by atheists to believe in God (evidence)
Therefore a double standard is maintained by a sizeable fraction of atheists.

If you have proposed something like this, I would like to see it. It would be an interesting discussion at least, I may even support you if it looks robust.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

The worst is the double standard of people that don't believe in fairies. They claim not to eat ham sandwiches but I know one that had roast ham for Christmas.

The above makes the exact same amount of sense, logically, as the OP.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Honestly, I have no idea. It could very well be that all of these entities (for lack of a better word that fits my situation) are the same entity. But if they are not all the same entity, then I do not believe they ever existed. Or, if they all did exist, they weren't the Creator, and not the same entity that I believe is God. The problem lies in the rhetoric and the doctrine. If the message is not the same, then the god is not the same. For me Genesis 6 suggests that the Greeks were calling entities gods when they were not gods at all.

And what is this belief founded on.

 

[ArtieE]

But you recognize that the quick blurb you quoted is contradicted by:

- the standard English article

From the standard English article:

"Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."[31][32][33]"
Agnosticism - Wikipedia

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From the standard English article:

"Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."[31][32][33]"
Agnosticism - Wikipedia

IOW, it's the belief that the existence of gods is currently unknowable, while leaving the possibility open that this might change in the future.

Did you miss that it described even weak atheism as a "view"? It's a considered position and therefore not a default. People don't emerge from the womb with an opinion about the current state of evidence for gods.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Nope but you meant it to be.

Drawing yet another conclusion without sufficient evidence, very theistic of you.

 

[Desert Snake]

But non believers make no claims

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

 

[ChristineM]

That's not quite it.

The claim is that atheism is based lack of belief, not that any particular atheist merely lacks belief in any particular god.

It's the difference between "you don't need to reject belief in gods to be an atheist" versus "no atheists reject belief in gods." They aren't the same thing.

May i repeat once more

The definition of atheism is :-

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

atheism - definition of atheism in English | Oxford Dictionaries

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

May i repeat once more

The definition of atheism is :-

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

atheism - definition of atheism in English | Oxford Dictionaries

I get that. Do you get my point?

 

[ChristineM]

Drawing yet another conclusion without sufficient evidence, very theistic of you.

There is plenty of evidence in the posts you write.