Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Curious George]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

I don't think you understand the argument or what the argument demonstrates.

 

[Curious George]

No, in this case is a rejection of truth value. It's an abstention.

I don't know is an abstention from truth value. "No" is assigning a truth value.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@1137, you seem to have a mental stumbling block on the distinction between atheists, who each individually may hold all sorts of beliefs - or not - about the non-existence any given set of gods, and atheism, which refers only to the characteristic that makes someone an atheist, i.e. not believing in any gods.

"You don't need to reject gods to be an atheist" does not mean "no atheists reject gods."

 

[Valjean]

The wording of the question required a yes or no response. Wouldn't answering "No" to both possibilities be equivalent to "I don't know?"

 

[Curious George]

The wording of the question required a yes or no response. Wouldn't answering "No" to both possibilities constitute an abstention?

Just as much as answering yes. It is arbitrary.

 

[1137]

No, it doesn't.

When asked if god exists, I say I do not know.
I do not know does not mean god exists.

Like I said, not even worth a "nice try"

If you do not know then this is agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism is a leaning towards no gods, whereas theism leans towards gods, with strong forms existing of both. So do you think that it is more or less likely that the universe has gods than that it is godless?

There's no implication of belief that something is in the box if someone says "I don't know".

"I don't know" encompasses all possibilities: I don't know what's in there or even whether something is in there.

If I ask you what I had for lunch, you say "I don't know." But that doesn't mean you are claiming that I must have had something for lunch.

This is exactly why the actual argument used is dishonest, it ignores the "I don't know position," or rather it pretends that agnosticism is not an option, and that "I don't know" is atheism. This is a clear perversion of the terms.

Hmm. I must have done something wrong, then. I opened the box. Then I put things inside the box. And by "things" I mean everything. I put everything inside the box.

What now, @1137 ?

Seems to me people choose what to put in their boxes.

Haha, as a psychological discussion I find this fascinating, and would agree. Relative to the validity of this argument from atheists, I find this irrelevant.

You can agree or disagree with the analogy, but your statement that atheism is a belief is still wrong. How is not believing someone's claim a belief?

Because you find it more likely, overall, that there are no gods in the universe as an atheist, correct?

I don't think you understand the argument or what the argument demonstrates.

Can you elaborate and/or clarify perhaps?

@1137, you seem to have a mental stumbling block on the distinction between atheists, who each individually may hold all sorts of beliefs - or not - about the non-existence any given set of gods, and atheism, which refers only to the characteristic that makes someone an atheist, i.e. not believing in any gods.

"You don't need to reject gods to be an atheist" does not mean "no atheists reject gods."

I suggest you look into the difference between claims of certainty and beliefs, as it is fundamental to philosophy of religion. I am not in any way suggesting atheism rejects gods, I am suggesting that it believes the universe to be godless, in other words find it more likely that there are 0 gods than 1+ gods. Do you believe it is more likely that there are gods, or that the universe is godless?

 

[Falvlun]

This is exactly why the actual argument used is dishonest, it ignores the "I don't know position," or rather it pretends that agnosticism is not an option, and that "I don't know" is atheism. This is a clear perversion of the terms.

Ah. Well, then we are in full agreement.

 

[Cobol]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

I'm an anti-theist, so not only do i not believe in god, I'm against the idea of God's existence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you do not know then this is agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism is a leaning towards no gods, whereas theism leans towards gods, with strong forms existing of both.

That's not what atheism means.

So do you think that it is more or less likely that the universe has gods than that it is godless?

I think that I've never seen a good reason to believe in any gods, and that I shouldn't accept claims without good reason.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

Such is pretty much why I do not use the label atheist to describe myself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suggest you look into the difference between claims of certainty and beliefs, as it is fundamental to philosophy of religion. I am not in any way suggesting atheism rejects gods, I am suggesting that it believes the universe to be godless, in other words find it more likely that there are 0 gods than 1+ gods. Do you believe it is more likely that there are gods, or that the universe is godless?

You just don't understand what atheism is.

I think this is why you keep on going off about "dishonest" atheists: you try to throw out the meaning that they use and instead try to shoehorn your own in.

Of course the end result doesn't make sense, but this is your own doing.

 

[1137]

That's not what atheism means.


I think that I've never seen a good reason to believe in any gods, and that I shouldn't accept claims without good reason.

This is like statement X, Y, and Z being identical, but you're simply ommiting Z.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is like statement X, Y, and Z being identical, but you're simply ommiting Z.

Your statement suggests to me that you just don't understand what I'm saying.

 

[Revoltingest]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

So you infer an intent to deceive from this argument?
Why?

 

[1137]

So you infer an intent to deceive from this argument?
Why?

To avoid any burden of proof.

 

[Revoltingest]

To avoid any burden of proof.

None of it is provable, so there's nothing to avoid.
How is it that the argument is deceptive though?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Indeed I do believe Odin is an interpretation of something real. And if I did not, I would believe without certainty that Odin is a fabrication, nonexistent.

Please clarify what the heck you mean by ..'Odin is an interpretation of something real.' Does that mean you DO believe that the god Odin exists and rules over Valhalla or do you NOT believe that the god Odin exists?

 

[Willamena]

You can agree or disagree with the analogy, but your statement that atheism is a belief is still wrong. How is not believing someone's claim a belief?

It is how the English language treats negations.

 

[Vinayaka]

Where's the cat? He wants to sit in the box.

 

[gnostic]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

I must say that this is one stupid analogy of atheists vs theists.

Anyone with a brain, whether they be atheists or theists, gnostics or agnostics, would actually open the box, and look inside to determine if the box contains something, or it is empty. Once they look, they will know if there is something or nothing in the box, without requiring "belief" or "disbelief".

You are making biased presumption of what theists and atheists would do.

And you are wrong about agnostics too. The agnostics would say "I don't know", if the box is unopened, and they can't see what inside...but they would know if they bother to open the box and look.

And they (agnostics) wouldn't need to look, to know if the box is empty or not, simply by picking it up, move it around or shake it. If they can hear or feel something moving about inside the box, then they will know it is not empty, even if they don't know what the content(s_ is (are) within the box. Both atheists and theists can do exactly the same experiment.

You are stereotyping agnostics too, with this "I don't know".

Your scenario is pathetically weak absurdly biased, and required great deal of unfair generalizing and faulty presumptions.