The default position...

[George-ananda]

Exactly, so why even make that judgment now if you are going to keep wondering anyways?

Because I must live my life while I'm still alive. And I claim not a final proof but the most reasonable position on all the evidence and argumentation at this time.

I guess I am having an issue with your claim that you have proved its existence "beyond a reasonable doubt". Can you go into how you've done that briefly?

Again, the word 'have proved' is not correct in the above statement; 'believe' is the better choice of words.

First I started with a study of so-called paranormal things. I came to the position that the material only view of reality is incomplete beyond reasonable doubt. I studied if others knew about what this 'more' could be. This lead me into esoteric teachings of those who claim knowledge of this 'more'. Eventually I came upon the worldview of the (yes, allegedly) advanced souls of the eastern (Indian/Hindu) tradition and their teachings. I believe these individuals can perceive beyond the senses and the worldview they describe is IMO the most reasonable worldview proposed by man. Some of my most revered teachers are Pramahansa Yogananda, Vivekananda, Satya Sai Baba and a seemingly unending list that dovetail on clearly the most reasonable worldview my intellect has encountered. This is a non-dualistic worldview (God and creation are not-two).

 

[George-ananda]

I'm saying that the jury, or whatever, believes the man committed a murder because they have evidence.
Physical, visible, tested, and sufficient evidence.

A God belief is not in comparison because it does not present such evidence.

You don't convict a man of murder because you think he did it, you do so because of proof he did it.
You may believe in God because you think he/she is real, not because you have proof he/she is.

That was my point.

OK, my use of the murder case analogy was just to point out that we can believe things are 'beyond reasonable doubt' without proof.

 

[outhouse]

A God belief is not in comparison because it does not present such evidence.

Ah!!!!!!!!

But there is evidence!

And it all points to a man made creation in mythology by primitive people.

 

[outhouse]

my use of the murder case analogy was just to point out that we can believe things are 'beyond reasonable doubt' without proof.

Which is totally inane.

Because reasonable doubt is based on evidence, not proof.

You have ZERO credible evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

You have ZERO credible evidence.

Who determines what evidence is credible and what evidence is not credible. My answer would be, it's our own individual intelligent judgment that is the only determiner when you are in controversial areas.

 

[outhouse]

Who determines what evidence is credible and what evidence is not credible

In a court case the judge determines what can and cannot be introduced to be presented to the jury for their decision.

But thanks for playing.

 

[outhouse]

it's our own individual intelligent judgment

Well the world does not work that way in academia or any other educated methodology. People dont get to imagine up credible evidence

 

[leibowde84]

That is not how it works. There are many people who are not theist, but they aren't atheist either.
Such a limited view does not because it is an attempt to appropriate everyone who isn't a theist and label them as an atheist, even if they aren't an atheist.
Views of god, spirits, and religions stretch far beyond the limited and narrow approach of this "atheist/theist" dichotomy.

I disagree. Linguistically, and by definition, anyone who "lacks a belief in the existence of God" is an "atheist". The prefix "a" means "to be without" and "theism" is the "belief in the existence of God or gods". Thus, an "atheist" is anyone who is without a belief in the existence of God.

Your claim that we are trying to label everyone who is not a theist as an atheist, "even if they aren't an atheist" is illogical. "Atheism" is a general terms, and there are a great deal of subcategories underneath it, just as with "theism". By definition and according to the linguistic rule noted above, "atheism" is to be without "theism" or a belief in the existence of God. So, saying that anyone who is not a theist is an atheist is accurate.

Why does this create a problem in your mind?

 

[outhouse]

Why does this create a problem in your mind?

Some people have not studied the actual definition in detail. Most people don't have a clue what implicit atheism actually is.

Many are willfully ignorant and refuse to accept the current definition.

I don't think Shadow knows the full definition.

 

[ArtieE]

That is not how it works. There are many people who are not theist, but they aren't atheist either.

What?!
prefix meaning examples
a- also an- not, without [example] atheist
"Not theist" = atheist
Prefixes | EnglishClub

 

[Deathbydefault]

I was aware of such things stated within the definitions, but I was unsure if I was missing something.
Hence my refusal to debate the topic.

I disagree. Linguistically, and by definition, anyone who "lacks a belief in the existence of God" is an "atheist". The prefix "a" means "to be without" and "theism" is the "belief in the existence of God or gods". Thus, an "atheist" is anyone who is without a belief in the existence of God.

Your claim that we are trying to label everyone who is not a theist as an atheist, "even if they aren't an atheist" is illogical. "Atheism" is a general terms, and there are a great deal of subcategories underneath it, just as with "theism". By definition and according to the linguistic rule noted above, "atheism" is to be without "theism" or a belief in the existence of God. So, saying that anyone who is not a theist is an atheist is accurate.

Why does this create a problem in your mind?

Question for you, out of curiosity.
When atheism implies "God" does that refer to the definition or a specific?

I ask because I have seen people claim, "If you are Christian then you are atheistic to all other religions".

 

[leibowde84]

That is not how it works. There are many people who are not theist, but they aren't atheist either.
Such a limited view does not because it is an attempt to appropriate everyone who isn't a theist and label them as an atheist, even if they aren't an atheist.
Views of god, spirits, and religions stretch far beyond the limited and narrow approach of this "atheist/theist" dichotomy.

That is how it works, as "atheism" is merely being without "theism". Thus, whoever is not a "theist", by definition, is an "atheist". There are many subcategories of both, though.

 

[leibowde84]

I was aware of such things stated within the definitions, but I was unsure if I was missing something.
Hence my refusal to debate the topic.



Question for you, out of curiosity.
When atheism implies "God" does that refer to the definition or a specific?

I ask because I have seen people claim, "If you are Christian then you are atheistic to all other religions".

I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "atheistic to another religion", but all that is required for "theism" is a "belief in the existence of God or gods". So, it is not specific. Anyone who believes in any God is a theist, according to the definition of the term.

 

[ArtieE]

Logically the default position is upon the person making the claim. I don't have to provide any sort of counter claim if the original claim has not yet met burden of proof. The claim of an atheist who believes there is no god would need to support that claim. However is someone does not believe in the claim "there is a god" then they are in the default position.

You: "God exists".
Me: "No, he doesn't"

You present the original claim, you have the burden of proof. Under no circumstance can you go: "Prove he doesn't". "No he doesn't" is a response to your original claim. Nobody would say "No he doesn't" if you hadn't said "God exists" first. You made the original positive claim.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "atheistic to another religion", but all that is required for "theism" is a "belief in the existence of God or gods". So, it is not specific. Anyone who believes in any God is a theist, according to the definition of the term.

Ah, but I'm saying because they believe God A they disbelieve in Gods B-Z
So would they be considered atheistic towards Gods B-Z because they only believe in God A?

That's a confusion I am having, lol.
Sorry to drag you into it

 

[George-ananda]

That is how it works, as "atheism" is merely being without "theism". Thus, whoever is not a "theist", by definition, is an "atheist". There are many subcategories of both, though.

Whatever happened to the word 'agnostic'. The word 'atheist' has too strong a connotation for many in modern parlance.

 

[leibowde84]

Ah, but I'm saying because they believe God A they disbelieve in Gods B-Z
So would they be considered atheistic towards Gods B-Z because they only believe in God A?

That's a confusion I am having, lol.
Sorry to drag you into it

No worries. I have heard this claim quite a bit from scholars, and the early Christians were, in fact, referred to as "atheists", as they did not believe in the Roman gods of the time. But, I would like to point out that there is a big difference between being "atheistic toward" something and being an "atheist" in general.

 

[leibowde84]

Whatever happened to the word 'agnostic'. The word 'atheist' has too strong a connotation for many in modern parlance.

The term "agnostic" is still there, so I'm not sure what you mean. It merely represents a more specific situation, just like "deism" is a subcategory of "theism".

 

[Deathbydefault]

No worries. I have heard this claim quite a bit from scholars, and the early Christians were, in fact, referred to as "atheists", as they did not believe in the Roman gods of the time. But, I would like to point out that there is a big difference between being "atheistic toward" something and being an "atheist" in general.

That's the conclusion I reached as well, thank you for clarification

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You: "God exists".
Me: "No, he doesn't"

You present the original claim, you have the burden of proof. Under no circumstance can you go: "Prove he doesn't". "No he doesn't" is a response to your original claim. Nobody would say "No he doesn't" if you hadn't said "God exists" first. You made the original positive claim.

I assume by "you" you don't mean me literally. But I agree. The one making the positive claim always has burden of proof except in rare circumstances.