Challenge for atheists/ atheist position

[TheGunShoj]

That's a different context. Topically, that could be related to a statement or position that tries to hold an atheistic, and theistic stance, at the same time. Or, more realistically, a supposition that requires belief in a deity, yet the person positing the supposition does not believe in the deity,,etc/ things of that nature.

I don't follow.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Because a position can be declarative even if 'we' /the ones holding that position/, might change our minds later. Changing ones mind doesn't change the position, the person merely adapts a new position. Hence irrelevance.

Still don't see where you're going with this. So I can't make a declarative statement that "I don't believe in any deities" if it's conditional? The condition would be whether or not an argument for a deity that I haven't encountered yet convinced me that i was wrong. As for your position, if you encountered evidence that changed your mind about the existence of a god, It's the same condition. Yet you say that mine is no position but yours is. Please clarify this.

 

[TheGunShoj]

If there is any debacle going on, it would be from people who hold a position that is purely conditional, therefore not a position, yet, treat it as if it were an actual position, ; then, complain when other people do not provide the necessary parameters, by which they (the ones claiming a purely conditional ''position''), would use to define their own stated positions.

Again, clarify how your theism is a position but atheism is not when they both necessarily have certain conditions that must be met for them to be valid.

 

[TheGunShoj]

The statement of ''I don't believe in any deities'', is different from ''there are no deities".

Yes, and?

Conditional only involves the positions or arguments, it doesn't mean someone cannot change their mind later.

Atheism is a response to theistic claims. As the burden of proof lies on the person making an existential claim, in a discussion like this, the atheist responds to the model provided by the theist.

As I said my reason for non belief is that no theistic claims that I have ever encountered has met its burden of proof and therefor I have no reason to believe it. Obviously, if a theist did meet their burden of proof I would need to change my position to be in line with the evidence.

Where are you getting this information that a position is not allowed to be conditional?

 

[TheGunShoj]

My theism, is not conditional , on your atheism. *Your atheism, is conditional, on my theistic stance.

Yes, because the theist position is the one asserting an existential claim. Therefore, my atheism is obviously contingent on whether or not you can meet your burden of proof or not. Why is that a problem?

 

[TheGunShoj]

anything purely conditional is not a position,...it's...not a stance. .

says who?

 

[TheGunShoj]

Some people call this agnostic.

gnosticism/agnosticism are labels which address knowledge rather than belief like atheism/theism do which is why they are not mutually exclusive. I have no idea what agnosticism has to do with the current discussion.

 

[TheGunShoj]

logic.

how could it be a position?

think of it this way, a position cannot be conflicting positions at the same time. the definition you are using for your atheism, in theory, posits different conflicting positions; ie it's meaningless.

....no it doesn't. How do you come up with that? My position is that I do not believe in any deities. That's it. What other conflicting belief am I holding?

 

[TheGunShoj]

That's not a position. It's a non-position. Your giving something a name that has no meaning. ie what you are calling atheism is not ''disbelief'' in deity, it is /don't know'/. ''don't know'', is not ''disbelief in deity'', therefore not ''atheism''. and theism may not be asserting any claim, and that is precisely why you actually have no position regarding the OP.

Yes theism necessarily is asserting an existential claim. Theism is the belief in a deity, it means you believe a deity exists. How can you be a theist but not believe in the existence of a deity?

 

[TheGunShoj]

Your definition of atheism is not positing belief or disbelief, so, your own assertion here is arguing against your own definition of atheism.

I don't know how many times I've stated that "I do not believe any deities exist" or "no deities exist" ect.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Yes, you are then contradicting yourself, because a statement such as 'there are no deities', is not a conditional position; yet you insist on defining your own argument through conditions, or through specific theistic arguments. this makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Okay...

My position "no deities exist" which you have no problem accepting as a position.

**deity is proven to exist**

Then based on that condition I MUST change my position to be in line with the evidence. yet was it not a position to begin with? Is it not a position still, just one that i no longer hold?

What is the problem??!?!

 

[McBell]

Yes, because the theist position is the one asserting an existential claim. Therefore, my atheism is obviously contingent on whether or not you can meet your burden of proof or not. Why is that a problem?

It is a problem because he cannot meet his burden of proof.
He knows this, thus the run around from him in this thread.

 

[Ouroboros]

Q. - Do we have any evidence whatsoever of people with more than two arms?
If the answer to either of the above questions is within screaming distance of "NO," it seems to me that we're already halfway to demonstrating that (at the very least) your belief in The Invisible Four-Armed Man is unfounded (if not sheer lunacy).

Polymelia ("many limbs") is a real genetic defect. There are people born with extra arms, and in very strange places of their bodies. Just an FYI.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Polymelia ("many limbs") is a real genetic defect. There are people born with extra arms, and in very strange places of their bodies. Just an FYI.

So this hypothetical Invisible Four-Armed Man is in fact at least partially substantiated by evidence, then? Or at least we can say that it isn't entirely out of the question that he might possibly have four arms ... because the evidence leads us in the general direction of that conclusion?

...

Shall I hold my breath for an FYI regarding genetic defects that cause invisibility? Or are we obliged to consult our dog-eared, New International Version issues of The Fantastic Four and let our faith lead us to our conclusions?

"Y'all see? There is so evidence that people kin turn all invisible 'n such! It's right there in the pages of the Marvel Universe!"

 

[NulliuSINverba]

... my atheism is obviously contingent on whether or not you can meet your burden of proof or not. Why is that a problem?

Because theists can't meet their burden of proof?

...

It's just a wild guess.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Because theists can't meet their burden of proof?

...

It's just a wild guess.

Right. So far as I know, none of them have. Thus atheism.

 

[Yorutenchi]

This is only your opinion because your standards for evidence are higher then totally subjective evidence...
It is still evidence.


I agree.
I am not arguing that point.
I am arguing that though you and I see them as useless, they are still, in fact, evidence.


That is my whole point.
Not everyone shares the same standard for evidence.
The only reason to include "convincing" is because you know that there are differing stndards for evidence.

I use the term convincing because evidence has to be rooted in something to be viable. Otherwise it is simply an opinion or assumption. Otherwise what is the difference between an assumption and evidence?

 

[McBell]

I use the term convincing because evidence has to be rooted in something to be viable.

No, it doesn't.
What you are not accepting is the fact that evidence does not "has to be" anything other than that which convinces someone of something.

You keep presenting your own personal standards for evidence as though everyone has to follow them.

Otherwise it is simply an opinion or assumption. Otherwise what is the difference between an assumption and evidence?

Problem here is that opinions and assumptions can be evidence.
They are NOT mutually exclusive.

 

[Pudding]

Can you convince me that I'm incorrect in my theism? Here is the thing though, no help from me, you'll have to simply present your argument, or realize that you don't have an argument suitable, and pass on the challenge.
I'm an honest person, not religious, this isn't a ''trick'' question. Non atheists can answer to

/fun thread

In order for anyone to try to convince you that you're incorrect in your theism, you need to first specify which god your theism follow or believe exists and present your evidence that your theism is correct.
Only after that can people examine your evidence to find out whether your evidence is convincing to them or not.

My G-d is the Biblical one. Here is the problem with having people try to present arguments against that; the argument then becomes about semantics, and appeal to authority. Thus, it is more problematic than a broad argument. This is because people have their own idea of who the Biblical Deity is.

Now you've say that your G-d is the Biblical one, next, you have to present your evidence which prove your G-d exists.
After that, then people can examine your evidence to find out whether your evidence is convincing to them or not.
If they find your evidence is convincing to them, they may join your theism.

If they find your evidence is unconvincing to them, they then explain why it's unconvincing to them through their reasoning, then you can further debate with them if you think their reasoning is unconvincing to you.
Or if you think their reasoning is convincing to you, then they've successfully convince you that you're incorrect in your theism.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Q. - Do we have any evidence whatsoever of invisible people?
Q. - Do we have any evidence whatsoever of people with more than two arms?

If the answer to either of the above questions is within screaming distance of "NO," it seems to me that we're already halfway to demonstrating that (at the very least) your belief in The Invisible Four-Armed Man is unfounded (if not sheer lunacy).

A - We don't need evidence, as my belief in the invisible 4-armed man is based on faith and my personal feeling and experience
A - Of course there is evidence of people with more than two arms...

Certainly you see how closely related this argument is with that for most theistic claims?

If we don't have any evidence whatsoever that god(s) exist, let alone god(s) that fly through space and time just champing at the bit to meddle in the political and social affairs of its creation, then belief in any god is likewise bordering on sheer lunacy, right?