It only matters what it takes to convince said theist, what their burden of proof is. If they need 51% certainty they may be good but if they need 99.9% they may never be certain of anything.
-
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!
Who has the burden of proof?
- Thread starter Delta-9
- Start date
It only matters what it takes to convince said theist, what their burden of proof is. If they need 51% certainty they may be good but if they need 99.9% they may never be certain of anything.
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
I am glad that most agree with the substance of my argument, that admitting uncertainty is the only rational option. They even go to the extreme of saying that it is so obviously the most rational option that almost everyone is agnostic ( the definition of agnostic is having doubts), that even theists are agnostics!
Unfortunately, the debate has become mere semantics. * It began when I said that the only rational option is uncertainty. I call that (correctly) agnosticism. Some may disagree, but I will stick with the dictionary definition.
Yes, one can be an agnostic that favors theism, an agnostic theist. However, to claim that agnostic theist= theist is improper English.
I have heard some say that if you are 51% theist, you are a theist. I do not think that beliefs can be quantified, but I’ll provisionally accept that for the time being. That means that only someone 50-50 can be an agnostic!! WOW! That means that there must be 2 or 3 agnostics in the whole world!!!
And yes there are theists (those that have no doubt that God exists). It’s called faith.
* Arguing about the definition of words is a simple man’s way to enter a philosophical debate. I have never been fascinated by arguments about grammar. Yes, I confess that sometimes I don’t capitalize “i”! Anyway, I can live with knowing that when some people say “theist” they are actually saying “agnostic theist”. A theist with doubts is not an agnostic?!
I think the fanaticism and emotionalism over a minor issue of grammar is because people feel insulted to be called an agnostic. In fact it is the most rational stance ( that one is not absolutely sure). Unfortunately, they think "agnostic' means being indecisive and/or non-committal ( in the negative sense) to the big questions.
Unfortunately, the debate has become mere semantics. * It began when I said that the only rational option is uncertainty. I call that (correctly) agnosticism. Some may disagree, but I will stick with the dictionary definition.
Yes, one can be an agnostic that favors theism, an agnostic theist. However, to claim that agnostic theist= theist is improper English.
I have heard some say that if you are 51% theist, you are a theist. I do not think that beliefs can be quantified, but I’ll provisionally accept that for the time being. That means that only someone 50-50 can be an agnostic!! WOW! That means that there must be 2 or 3 agnostics in the whole world!!!
And yes there are theists (those that have no doubt that God exists). It’s called faith.
* Arguing about the definition of words is a simple man’s way to enter a philosophical debate. I have never been fascinated by arguments about grammar. Yes, I confess that sometimes I don’t capitalize “i”! Anyway, I can live with knowing that when some people say “theist” they are actually saying “agnostic theist”. A theist with doubts is not an agnostic?!
I think the fanaticism and emotionalism over a minor issue of grammar is because people feel insulted to be called an agnostic. In fact it is the most rational stance ( that one is not absolutely sure). Unfortunately, they think "agnostic' means being indecisive and/or non-committal ( in the negative sense) to the big questions.
Last edited:
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
As for the argument that atheism is the lack of belief. That is not incorrect. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Agnosticism is the lack of belief.
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
Actually it is both.
Ignoring definitions of words that hurt your argument do not help your argument.
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
Um , no, atheism is not both. It is a belief. If I say that I believe that there are no unicorns, that is my belief.
Anyway, another grammar debate! Like I said previously, semantics is a simple man's way to enter a philosophical debate. He can have something to say, even tho it is superfluous.
Anyway, another grammar debate! Like I said previously, semantics is a simple man's way to enter a philosophical debate. He can have something to say, even tho it is superfluous.
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
McBell
Unbound
It is not me who is in complete denial.
RitalinOhD
Heathen Humanist
You have to be gnostic to claim there is no God. Or if you prefer the Dawkins scale, which I actually don't, a strong atheist.
These positions claim knowledge of non existence. These types are, as far as I can tell, a minority amongst atheists.
So in essence, Mestemia is correct, however the qualifier is needed to know ones true position.
These positions claim knowledge of non existence. These types are, as far as I can tell, a minority amongst atheists.
So in essence, Mestemia is correct, however the qualifier is needed to know ones true position.
Last edited:
Sure just keep in mind that knowledge isn't necessary for belief. Knowledge isn't even necessary to make a claim. A persons own belief would be accurate at least to themselves, only an individual truly knows their own belief.
RitalinOhD
Heathen Humanist
I've literally been saying that the entire thread. Nowhere in the definition of atheist is knowledge claimed. The exact same for theist. Repeated it prolly 6 times.
Some folks just can't grasp it, and insist on their own definition.
What interested me was your comment of some atheists claiming knowledge of non-existence. That doesn't seem possible or even necessary, theists claim of knowledge is faith based. I like "absence of belief" to cover things that have no evidence, regardless of how much we know.
Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
But there are gnostic atheists.
There are some on this very site.
It doesn't require faith, generally it's a logic based argument they use to support their claim.
Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
Raw Thought, so. I want to make sure I have this right.
You are ok with ignoring a dictionary definition of the word, and the etymology of a word, just to continue using only the definition you prefer, because doing otherwise would make you have to adjust our reevaluate your position?
Despite the people actually using the label in question showing you why you're wrong?
Well, gosh. At least your open minded and in no way amazingly dogmatic.
You are ok with ignoring a dictionary definition of the word, and the etymology of a word, just to continue using only the definition you prefer, because doing otherwise would make you have to adjust our reevaluate your position?
Despite the people actually using the label in question showing you why you're wrong?
Well, gosh. At least your open minded and in no way amazingly dogmatic.
Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
Could you link or quote where someone in this thread said that?
I must have missed it.
Well I dont know I don't think atheism is supportable. It shouldnt be if it is assumed god doesnt exist.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Well no problem - atheism does not make that assumption.
Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
WELL, lets go with an old chestnut.
Change deity of choice for Loch ness monster.
Assuming you don't believe in Nessie, is your thought that Nessie doesn't exist supportable?
What proof of non distance of Nessie is there, or is there only a lack of positive evidence ?
And are you taking all atheism here, or just gnostic atheism
RitalinOhD
Heathen Humanist
I would beg to differ.
It's far more supportable than theism, at least in regards to Abrahamic monotheism.
Science has shown that a God (any God, not just abrahamic) is not necessary as a creator for the world we live in.
Logic and reason should lead you to doubt it's existence, if you actually employ a bit of critical thinking. Unfortunately, it takes a complete lack of critical thinking to accept a book as the true word of god, when it is demonstrably chock full of contradictions, half truths, and complete misinformation.
At least that's the way I see it.