• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Sharing an observation about atheism here on RF

Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Curious George said:
Lol.

No I don't think we have cleared this up though.

How can one focus on a position if there is no position on which to focus?
Click to expand...
Why would they do that? Who cares?
Tell you what - you always want me to do all the work. Spin that last question into an actual argument that makes sense and I will answer it ok?
 
God lover

God lover

Member
Skwim said:
Has anyone else noticed lately how quite a few threads have gone off topic to take atheism /atheists to task? It seems as if some people can't wait to put an anti-atheism spin on an unrelated topic. And if it isn't anti-atheism, the poster at least wants to put the issue in an atheistic context.

Just wondering.
Click to expand...
Well, either way, let's all try to stay on topic. That sounds pretty good! Really listen to the topic at hand. I will try to be to the point.
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
Bunyip said:
Why would they do that? Who cares?
Tell you what - you always want me to do all the work. Spin that last question into an actual argument that makes sense and I will answer it ok?
Click to expand...
rejection of a position is still a position. So we can focus on the position of the rejection. However, if a person is trying to adamantly deny that it is a position so therefore cannot be attacked, then one can proceed only after dealing with the position that rejection is not a position before proceeding. This of course necessitates an understanding of what rejection entails, what rejection is, and whether a person who knows of God, but does not accept the proposition god exists as true, is indeed rejecting that proposition.

Therefore, the"definition" argument becomes much more central to progress. Because if someone is operating under a definition without accepting what that definition entails, they are operating with an incomplete definition. Now I understand that definition can vary, I am happy to take on definitions to which I do not agree in order to follow the entailment of such claims. But this essentially begins to shift the focus to whether someone can lack belief while understanding that in which they lack belief.
Thus, it is important to further discussion that all parties are operating with the same understanding that they have a position.

Letting people carry on with erroneous assumptions that they have a lack of a position is detrimental to the discussion.
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Curious George said:
rejection of a position is still a position.
Click to expand...
Just re-asserting that is not an argument George. Is that where you're at? Or can we get past this?
So we can focus on the position of the rejection. However, if a person is trying to adamantly deny that it is a position so therefore cannot be attacked, then one can proceed only after dealing with the position that rejection is not a position before proceeding. This of course necessitates an understanding of what rejection entails, what rejection is, and whether a person who knows of God, but does not accept the proposition god exists as true, is indeed rejecting that proposition.

Therefore, the"definition" argument becomes much more central to progress. Because if someone is operating under a definition without accepting what that definition entails, they are operating with an incomplete definition.
Click to expand...
So what mate? Definitions are not complete - how can you still fail to grasp that definitions are just descriptions? It is not even relevant if they are 'complete'.
Now I understand that definition can vary, I am happy to take on definitions to which I do not agree in order to follow the entailment of such claims. But this essentially begins to shift the focus to whether someone can lack belief while understanding that in which they lack belief.
Thus, it is important to further discussion that all parties are operating with the same understanding that they have a position.

Letting people carry on with erroneous assumptions that they have a lack of a position is detrimental to the discussion.
Click to expand...
What position? You are talking in riddles.
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
Bunyip said:
Just re-asserting that is not an argument George. Is that where you're at? Or can we get past this? So what mate? Definitions are not complete - how can you still fail to grasp that definitions are just descriptions? It is not even relevant if they are 'complete'.
What position? You are talking in riddles.
Click to expand...
Hmm, seems like you don't understand.
If I do not accept that Spartacus is a man. At a minimum I am making the weak assertion that Spartacus might not be a man.

The same is true for theism. If I do not accept that god exists at a minimum I am making the weak assertion that God might not exist. I could also be making the assertion that God does not exist. Either way I am taking a position for which there is a burden of proof. If one is making the weaker of the two assertions it is helpful to hone in on what else one believes. Might they believe that god exists and god does not exist are equally likely propositions. Might they believe that there is no evidence that supports either proposition? Might they believe that there is no way of knowing or proving either proposition? There are many possibilities, but the fact is that they do not just have a void concerning god beliefs.
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Curious George said:
Hmm, seems like you don't understand.
If I do not accept that Spartacus is a man. At a minimum I am making the weak assertion that Spartacus might not be a man.
Click to expand...
But surely, 'at minimum', you are not making an assertion at all?.
The same is true for theism. If I do not accept that god exists at a minimum I am making the weak assertion that God might not exist. I could also be making the assertion that God does not exist. Either way I am taking a position for which there is a burden of proof. If one is making the weaker of the two assertions it is helpful to hone in on what else one believes. Might they believe that god exists and god does not exist are equally likely propositions. Might they believe that there is no evidence that supports either proposition? Might they believe that there is no way of knowing or proving either proposition? There are many possibilities, but the fact is that they do not just have a void concerning god beliefs.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you lost me.
 
J

Jeremy Taylor

Active Member
CuriousGeorge,

When it comes to atheism you are certainly correct. Atheism implies an examination of the evidence for the nature of the universe and where it points (ie., not the in the direction of Theism but towards an alternative, atheistic metaphysics), just as much as theism does. This is why it is in no sense a logical default. In truth, he who makes a claim in an argument needs to back it up, theist or atheist.
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
Bunyip said:
The bit where you are just insisting that not making the assertion in question is an assertion.
Click to expand...
I don't believe I said that.

I believe I suggested when one says they do not believe god exists, they are at a minimum asserting that "god might not exist"
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
Bunyip said:
Sure ok.
Click to expand...
So, when someone tries to suggest that they have no position, it is rather important to correct this error. However, some want to maintain that like "implicit atheists" they have no position. This hinders discussion. mixing implicit atheism with explicit atheism is an equivocation.

The rationale is very different between the two. One lacks a position, one has a position, albeit the skeptical default position.

Here is where it gets interesting. With so much evidence, (although none conclusive) the default position becomes harder to defend. In the case where one literally knows nothing to sway them either way, there is no burden of proof on the default skeptical position. However, once evidence is introduced, things change.

Now, the question is how in the face of the evidences can one maintain the default skeptical position? This now places the burden of proof on the person claiming to hold the default skeptical position. Simply stating it is not good enough evidence is not enough. The evidences must be explained away such that it is still reasonable to hold the position that god might or might not exist.

In here a host of inquiries relating to the "might" position. We may need to know how much evidence is enough evidence to move from might to belief that god exists or does not exist.

It cannot be conclusive evidence because then we would be dealing with knowledge not beliefs that are not knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top