Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Mary Blackchurch]

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!

You have to admit, if you're honest, that the analogy is a poor one since a box can be opened and the contents (or lack thereof) can verified. Not to mention that shaking the box and weighing it would yield evidence if said box cannot be opened. Proclaimed gods don't have those advantages or I think more people would believe. Those of us who don't are merely asking for more evidence in a vastly larger analogy - mainly the Universe; but also the Earth and its many contradictions to the analogous gods given. I don't see any disingenuous position taken in the analogy that you've given - I only see that it's a poor analogy.

 

[BSM1]

I don't care about what's in the box, but rather, who put the box there in the first place.

Exactly. And why a box? Why not a seven sided water bottle? And why is there anything that is not in the box? And what is the box sitting on? What box?

 

[mfrunyan]

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!

 

[mfrunyan]

The problem is that Christianity doesn't claim that God is in a box that we can't see inside of. It claims that God is everywhere, or, in other words, we all live 'inside the box.' The fact that we see no evidence for this god's existence inside this box is therefore good evidence for his non-existence. Your analogy is flawed.

 

[stevevw]

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!

Some atheists will take this position a little further. Not only do they assert that there is nothing in the box, but that nothing is a special kind of nothing that does something which may prove that something can come from nothing.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Theism in general does believe "something" is in the box, but the vast majority of theists don't stop there. Most theists believe in a specific god like Yahweh or Allah. But this is where you have to choose one analogy. You give two very different ones. The first one is the more appropriate one. We don't know whether anything is inside the box. The second one assumes there's something in the jar already.

Now, you first say the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box but that it's likely empty. Then you say for the atheist to be unsure of what's in the box would first require them to accept something is in the box. This does not logically follow from anything. One option for what could be in the box is nothing. To be unsure means you don't know whether it's something or nothing.

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!

It's interesting to me that you call the argument you're arguing against dishonest and absurd, but your argument contains a fatal logical error that I just pointed out. It's dishonest to say that the atheist has to accept that something is in the box. We don't. We accept that likely nothing is in the box. That's not a minor difference. At its core, atheism is indeed a lack of belief, not an actual belief. The example also does not ignore agnosticism. Agnosticism is about knowledge, Atheism/theism is about belief. An agnostic would admit we don't know what's in the box. That's just the reasonable stance. Then the question is what do you believe about what's in the box. That's what determines atheism or theism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You have to admit, if you're honest, that the analogy is a poor one since a box can be opened and the contents (or lack thereof) can verified. Not to mention that shaking the box and weighing it would yield evidence if said box cannot be opened.

In the version I'm most familiar with, it's one of those "guess how many jelly beans in the jar" games. And you can't open or manipulate the jar because this would be considered cheating, and if you did it, you would lose your chance to win the jelly beans.

That part is irrelevant to the overall point, though: the person (analogous to the theist) is claiming to know the answer based on whatever information he already has at hand. The fact that you might be able to get more or better information says nothing about whether his claim was justified.

Stepping outside the analogy, look at it this way: in a situation with only imperfect information available (i.e. the one we're in most of the time), we have to make conclusions based only on the information we have. We can try to get more information, of course, but the pursuit of more information isn't always going to be fruitful. Spending a lot of effort to find the conclusive answer to some question might not even be worthwhile - we only have limited resources and have to prioritize how we use them.

So say somebody brings forward a claim (e.g. "God exists!"). We can consider why that person believes that claim, and if we judge those reasons to be insufficient - and have no other reason to accept the claim - then we shouldn't accept it.

The point of the analogy is to illustrate the difference between rejecting an argument ("I think you have no idea how many jelly beans are in the jar.") and rejecting a conclusion ("I believe that the number of jelly beans is not even as you're claiming, so therefore I must accept that the number is odd").

At thr risk of confusing @1137 even more, and giving him more fodder to misinterpret, consider another analogy:

If someone tells me "the sky is blue. And I know the sky is blue because the pixies told me. Pixies painted it, and blue is pixies' favourite colour," I can reject the persons argument as utter nonsense without rejecting his conclusion (i.e. that the sky is blue). A sound argument implies that the conclusion is true, but an unsound argument says nothing at all about the truth or falsehood of the conclusion.

Edit: and when it comes to gods, except for a few isolated cases, all we have is unsound arguments.

 

[stevevw]

I think Christian will hopefully consider that there may be a few different possibilities in that box. They will include the science but also allow for the possibility of other things beyond the science. Atheists will only consider certain things that can only be supported by the science at least as far as God and agents that may play a role in what's in the box. In this sense, believers can have a wider view of things whereas atheists will narrow things down and pout limitations on the possibilities. But what has been happening with some sectors of scientific thought which is becoming more common is that science is moving to the fringes and even beyond scientific methods of validation such as with something from nothing and ideas like multiverses, hologram worlds, worm holes, and string theory etc. They have to because the standardised scientific methods of cause and effect cannot explain or measure what's is being seen and discovered. One area being Quantum physics ie Schrodinger's cat where the cat can be both dead and alive in the empty box at the same time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem is that Christianity doesn't claim that God is in a box that we can't see inside of. It claims that God is everywhere, or, in other words, we all live 'inside the box.' The fact that we see no evidence for this god's existence inside this box is therefore good evidence for his non-existence. Your analogy is flawed.

Please understand that @1137 is misrepresenting the analogy.

The point is to present a binary set of MECE options: this god exists vs. this god doesn't exist, or the number of jelly beans is even vs. the number of jelly beans is odd.

In the analogy, God is not a jelly bean and God is not in a jar.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

It's a thin disguise for what you do believe in

 

[Revoltingest]

It's a thin disguise for what you do believe in

And what is that which I so craftily hide?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think Christian will hopefully consider that there may be a few different possibilities in that box. They will include the science but also allow for the possibility of other things beyond the science. Atheists will only consider certain things that can only be supported by the science at least as far as God and agents that may play a role in what's in the box. In this sense, believers can have a wider view of things whereas atheists will narrow things down and pout limitations on the possibilities. But what has been happening with some sectors of scientific thought which is becoming more common is that science is moving to the fringes and even beyond scientific methods of validation such as with something from nothing and ideas like multiverses, hologram worlds, worm holes, and string theory etc. They have to because the standardised scientific methods of cause and effect cannot explain or measure what's is being seen and discovered. One area being Quantum physics ie Schrodinger's cat where the cat can be both dead and alive in the empty box at the same time.

Yes, right or wrong, there is an inherent bias in atheism, in always seeking to 'refute God' at the earliest opportunity, by declaring a conclusion as final and comprehensive- steady state, big crunch, classical physics, Darwinism. It presents a constant barrier to scientific progress.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And what is that which I so craftily hide?

See there you go, you even hide it from yourself!

 

[Revoltingest]

See there you go, you even hide it from yourself!

If you imagine some atheist conspiracy, you're wrong.
We're just not that smart.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If you imagine some atheist conspiracy, you're wrong.
We're just not that smart.

I don't think it's a conscious thing, on the contrary, your beliefs are just so strong that you don't see them as beliefs, they are default truths that need no defense as positive assertions, am I wrong?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think it's a conscious thing, on the contrary, your beliefs are just so strong that you don't see them as beliefs, they are default truths that need no defense as positive assertions, am I wrong?

This is all too airy fairy.
You're going to have to dumb down your points for me.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is all to airy fairy.
You're going to have to dumb down your points for me.

what created the universe, life, everything you see around you?

 

[ahamtatsat]

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.

i spoke with a physicist for hours at his book signing in Albuquerque one time. "THE UNOBSERVABLE UNIVERSE" by Scott M Tyson. He almost jumped off by stating (reassuringly, lol) that he did not believe in God, but we went on for some time. It turns out, that if you took the PHYSICAL and observable, material portions of an atom - the remainder would be energy, forces, and unknown. The actual material proportions of the atom are; material aspects - electron, proton, neutron, etc One Part (1) to Unobservable - Five Hundred Trillion. (500,000,000,000,000)

i did the math once - and if you could remove the forces keeping material atomic structure separate and jammed that known portion into one cubic inc, the unobservable and unknown area those atoms held would be over 35.2 miles X 35.2 miles X 35.2 miles. In other words - what we know - even if one knows a lot of the known information - is actually insignificant.

So - those who state that they KNOW that there is no God, no Divine, no Spirituality - have what means of even attempting to assess such a profound lack of awareness??

 

[Quintessence]

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.

Fair enough. I suppose I really don't care to judge in the fashion you are judging, so I don't look at things that way.

 

[Revoltingest]

what created the universe, life, everything you see around you?

I don't know that it was a "who".
To leap to 'knowledge' which isn't there is weak.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't know that it was a "who".
To leap to 'knowledge' which isn't there is weak.

so then you believe it was a 'what' rather than a 'who'?