Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wow.
And if a theist makes the same "natural universe" claim are they also 'in effect' saying there are no supernatural gods or do they get some sort of pass?

Well, there is a difference between methodological and physical naturalism in the metaphyiscal/ontological sense as in effect for everything.

But yes, for some variants of natural it follows that there are no gods as how the universe is naturalism is understood.
Further there is the problem of how it is known that the universe is natural.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But atheism makes no such assertion. The definitive atheist position is deferred belief, pending evidence. "I don't believe you" is atheism. Atheism is a skeptical position. This is our "honest belief."

What is Atheism?

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. It is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about a person.

www.atheists.org

If you're going to redefine terms you're building a straw man.

Well, here is a text from a site by American atheists:

Our Vision

We envision a world in which policies are made using the best evidence we have rather than using religious dogma.

www.atheists.org

"...
Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited. "

I don't control what atheism is and neither do you. So there is as always strong and weak atheism and not atheists are like you and I.

 

[PureX]

But atheism makes no such assertion.

Of course it does, or it's not atheism, it's just skepticism.

The definitive atheist position is deferred belief, pending evidence.

No one cares what anyone believes. The question is what does one assert, if anything, any why. And your own definition asserts that no gods exist. (You call it a "default position" but it's not a default position for anyone but atheists.) Your demand for evidence is the product of your own biased reasoning. Which is how you justify you atheist assertions.

"I don't believe you" is atheism. Atheism is a skeptical position.

Yeah, that's the big lie so many atheists are telling these days. But only they and the confused are dumb enough to buy it. I am not.

This is our "honest belief."

What is Atheism?

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. It is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about a person.

www.atheists.org

If you're going to redefine terms you're building a straw man.

I am simply telling the truth. Atheism is not skepticism, and it is not agnosticism. And it's not defined by anyone's "unbelief". Atheism is the asserted truth that no gods exist. And this is exactly what most atheists are asserting, even in their typical mealy-mouthed and disengenuous way.

 

[Valjean]

No, it is not.
All forms of 'god does not exist' are negative claims.

But it remains a claim of an actual state of reality; a postulate.
"Positive" means real or actual in this case, not a grammatical configuration. "There is no God" and "there is a God" differ semantically, but not logically/mathematically. They're both positive claims, and both assume a burden of proof.

If you make the claim "god exists" and I say, "I do not believe you".

that you divorce the two is a you problem.
Not one that I am concerned with.

Not following. "I don't believe you" is a subjective state, not an counter-claim about the veracity of the original claim.
How would I evidence "I don't believe you?" How would it figure, epistemically, in the discussion?

 

[Valjean]

Wow.
And if a theist makes the same "natural universe" claim are they also 'in effect' saying there are no supernatural gods or do they get some sort of pass?

No, that does not follow from the claim.

 

[Valjean]

The logical default conclusion is not that the claim is false just because it has not been argued true by your or anyone else's criteria. "False" is not the only possible, or even the probable alternative to "true".

We're not claiming "false," we're claiming inadequately supported.

They assume only the responsibility to share their logical justifications for asserting their proposed claim. They assume no burden whatever to convince you or anyone else that their claim it truth.

Again, this is a totally dishonest and illogical "default" conclusion.

No. I assume gryphons don't exist because I've seen no evidence that they do. I have no burden to demonstrate they don't. A claim that they do does not confer a burden on me to disprove them.

The claim someone else's claim is false, IS A CLAIM, and therefor assumes the same responsibility to present logical justification as any other truth claim does. By the way, an agnostic will not claim anyone else's god claims are false because they will already have concede pd to their inability to make that determination.

Again, we're not claiming your claim is false, We're claiming it's inadequately supported; that you haven't successfully met your burden yet, so we remain unconvinced.

Atheists are agnostics, as you're using the term. If you define agnosticism as the "I don't know" position, it's synonymous with atheism.
You're argument is based on a confusion of definitions. We're using the same words, but with different meanings.

You really don't seem to understand the atheist position -- or else you're deliberately strawmanning.

Like nearly all the atheists on here, you are responding to this whole based issue on your very biased and wrong presumption that it is the theists responsibility to convince you, and that when they fail to do that, that you can then claim the victory of your atheist over them, by some idiotic notion that atheism is the logical default to tegus my. This is totally false, and dishonest, and illogical, of course, but it will not stop any of the atheists on here from continuing to engage in this intellectually dishonest and childish presumption.

It is the theists' responsibility to convince me. They're the claimants, it's their burden of proof.

The atheists have nothing to defend. They've made no claims. They just find your evidence unconvincing. That's all we "claim:" we're unconvinced.

We're not claiming victory. It's you who seem to think this is some sort of contest or battle.
You protest too much, methinks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, that does not follow from the claim.

Well, it depends on the understanding of what the univerrse is and what natural is. But for at least one version of the universe is natural, it rules out gods.

 

[PureX]

We're not claiming "false," we're claiming inadequately supported.

No one cares what you consider to be inadequate support. Your criteria for adequate support is your own business. As is everyone else's. If you want to claim inadequate support, then you're going to have to justify that claim by presenting what is adequate support and defend why you think so, logically. None of you atheists can do that, and you know you can't do it. That's why you keep trying to hide behind "unbelief" and "default atheism" and all that disengenuous nonsense.

No. I assume gryphons don't exist because I've seen no evidence that they do.

Then you are a fool, logically speaking.

I have no burden to demonstrate they don't.

You are obliged to present the same logical justification as anyone else making a truth claim. "Demonstrations" are irrelevant.

A claim that they do does not confer a burden on me to disprove them.

A claim is just a claim. It requires nothing of anyone.

Again, we're not claiming your claim is false, We're claiming it's inadequately supported; that you haven't successfully met your burden yet, so we remain unconvinced.

Again, no one cares what you don't believe. No one cares what you think is adequate support for a truth claim. There are no winners or losers in an honest philosophical debate. There are only truth claims and the logic presented as support for them.

Atheists are agnostics, as you're using the term. If you define agnosticism as the "I don't know" position, it's synonymous with atheism.

Atheism is atheism and agnosticism is agnosticism. They are not the same things, at all. We are all agnostic if we are being honest with ourselves. We are still atheists or theists or undetermined. So let's stop hiding behind agnosticism so we don't have to admit and defend our actual positions.

You're argument is based on a confusion of definitions. We're using the same words, but with different meanings.

I am simply telling you the truth. If you still can't or won't recognize it that's not my problem. It's yours. Talking to atheists these days is like talking to Trump supporters that live in a world of make-believe that they believe in so fully and unquestionably that they can't understand a word anyone else says. And they have no intention of trying.

You really don't seem to understand the atheist position -- or else you're deliberately strawmanning.

I understand it far better than you do.

It is the theists' responsibility to convince me. They're the claimants, it's their burden of proof.

What arrogant gibberish! You guys really LOVE this kangaroo court foolishness!

The atheists have nothing to defend. They've made no claims. They just find your evidence unconvincing. That's all we "claim:" we're unconvinced.

We're not claiming victory. It's you who seem to think this is some sort of contest or battle.
You protest too much, methinks.

And you will continue believing this idiocy no matter what, just like the Trump cultists. Becaus the alternative is to admit, God forbid, that you got it wrong!

 

[Valjean]

Of course it does, or it's not atheism, it's just skepticism.

Atheism is skepticism, if you define skepticism as lack of belief.

No one cares what anyone believes. The question is what does one assert, if anything, any why. And your own definition asserts that no gods exist. (You call it a "default position" but it's not a default position for anyone but atheists.)

Stop it!
We don't assert that no gods exist. We've explained this a hundred times.
We assert that we're unconvinced because you haven't adequately met your burden; he burden only the claimant has.
The "default position" isn't my invention. It's the original position that things are not reasonably assumed to exist without evidence.

Your demand for evidence is the product of your own biased reasoning. Which is how you justify you atheist assertions.

Doesn't asking for evidence before accepting an extraordinary claim seem reasonable to you?

Yeah, that's the big lie so many atheists are telling these days. But only they and the confused are dumb enough to buy it. I am not.

I am simply telling the truth. Atheism is not skepticism, and it is not agnosticism. And it's not defined by anyone's "unbelief". Atheism is the asserted truth that no gods exist. And this is exactly what most atheists are asserting, even in their typical mealy-mouthed and disengenuous way.

That is not how most atheists are using the term, or what we're asserting. It's not how most ontologists or philosophers of religion are currently using the term. It's not how most atheists in RF are using the term, and most of our arguments are not based on this usage of the term.

The claim that "no gods exist" would assume a burden -- though how non-existence in an open system would be demonstrated I have no idea. But we've been explaining our position here in RF for years. Nothing disingenuous or mealy-mouthed; we've been clear and unambiguous, yet you continue to strawman.

 

[F1fan]

Of course it does, or it's not atheism, it's just skepticism.

Atheism means non-theism. For anyone exposed to religious ideas in heir cultural experience to question these begins with skepticism.

No one cares what anyone believes.

We observe this isn't true. You care very much what atheists believe or don't believe.

All human experience from hobbies to politics to religion is all about beliefs and who is part of the tribe and who isn't. Humans evolved as tribal beings and as we evolved our beliefs because the biggest element of our tribe.

The question is what does one assert, if anything, any why.

And this question gooes directly against your previous sentence. No one would ask if no one cared.

And your own definition asserts that no gods exist. (You call it a "default position" but it's not a default position for anyone but atheists.)

We see theists distort the position and definitions of atheism quite often. Some gods can be determined as not existing if believers present enough details about what their God is. But in the whole atheists aren't convinced any of the many Gods exist due to a lack of evidence, and how they supposedly funtion in a material universe. The logical default of any claim is that it's untrue until determined to be true, or at least likely true. Theists fail to meet this basic logical standard.

Your demand for evidence is the product of your own biased reasoning.

How is reasoning biased since the process itself relies on evidence? Your claim here is absurd, and itself biased against evidence and valid reasoning methods.

Which is how you justify you atheist assertions.

Atheism is justified due to the process of evaluating claims.

Yeah, that's the big lie so many atheists are telling these days. But only they and the confused are dumb enough to buy it. I am not.

So you are calling atheists, me included, that our position and thinking is a lie? Of course you are prejudiced against evidence because I would ask you for evidence that tells us your claim is true. But it clearly isn't.

I am simply telling the truth. Atheism is not skepticism, and it is not agnosticism. And it's not defined by anyone's "unbelief". Atheism is the asserted truth that no gods exist. And this is exactly what most atheists are asserting, even in their typical mealy-mouthed and disengenuous way.

This is misrepresenting atheism, and atheists. You aren't one yet you are posting to the forum to ignore what actual atheists say, and believe your misrepresentation. My the arrogance is strong with you.

 

[shunyadragon]

Obviously "God does not exist" is a hard atheists assertion. Maybe this is not a big topic but I thought it should be brought out and some feedback is nice.

Actually most atheists do not hold this position. It is more common for atheists to believe" "there is no reason to believe God exists," Even the hard atheists position is more rational and logical than clinging to ancient tribal mythology and writings without provenance and the belief in an anthropomorphic God and the rejection of the objective science of the physical nature of our world.

There is absolutely no objective evidence that the ancient anthropomorphic Gods of ancient religions exist. Why should anybody believe in these Gods or ancient mythology?

 

[F1fan]

It is the theists' responsibility to convince me. They're the claimants, it's their burden of proof.

The atheists have nothing to defend. They've made no claims. They just find your evidence unconvincing. That's all we "claim:" we're unconvinced.

Correct. Atheists are responding to the claims of theists. There are no atheists without theists existing first. And they are making diverse claims of supernatural beings existing in some way. Where did these ideas come from? Ancient people creating their lore. As time has moved into today there has been no confirmation of what ancient lore states.

I can see how theists will interpret the doubt by atheists as staing their gods don't exist, but it isn't the atheist saying these gods don't exist, ot is the rules of logic that atheists use. The logical default is that ideas are considered untrue until evidence demontrates truth.

 

[ratiocinator]

Demanding ‘proof’ that one cannot possibly be given is the fools way of “winning the argument”. And it happens here all the time. I’m simply pointing it out, as a service to them, and to everyone.

I’m really curious why you feel the need to object to this.

As I said, the 'burden of proof' is a technical term that just means that if you make a claim, then it's up to you to justify it in some way, rather than up to other people to falsify it.

It is not a demand for absolute proof. This is basic critical thinking.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

Regardless of assertions by either Theists or atheists, or someone else, I personally find the nonsensical claims of "God does exist,"
or "God does not exist," irrelevant. No amount of debate from either side is going to likewise prove the existence or non-existence of god.
Furthermore, you would have to define which god? The god of Abraham? Zeus? Poseidon? Or another one of the thousands of gods that
people have believed in since mankind has come into being.

I personally, do not believe in any kind of divine supernatural being that intervenes in the world, answers prayers, etc. I don't believe in any
kind of "personal god." But I don't assert that there isn't one, even though I find it highly unlikely.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, it is a positive claim from persons who have not found any evidence of God's existence or that of soul; and refuse to be impressed by scriptural stories and the so-called messengers of God (again for lack of evidence). I do not shy away from making this claim.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

Also, would ANY atheists or non-believers really be convinced of god's existence, even if Theists were able to surmise some kind of evidence?
Aka, the burden of "proof." I highly doubt it.

And even if said proof was enough evidence to convince one that god exists, do people really think atheists would really drop to their knees and start worshipping god? I also highly doubt it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Atheism is skepticism, if you define skepticism as lack of belief.

Stop it!
We don't assert that no gods exist. We've explained this a hundred times.
...

You used wiki. Here you go.

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I said, the 'burden of proof' is a technical term that just means that if you make a claim, then it's up to you to justify it in some way, rather than up to other people to falsify it.

It is not a demand for absolute proof. This is basic critical thinking.

Yeah, but that is so much fun, because it could be considered absolute.

 

[PureX]

Atheism is skepticism, if you define skepticism as lack of belief.

And confusion is skepticism if I define skepticism as confusion. But of course this is just silly sophistry because atheism is atheism and skepticism is skepticism and confusion is confusion. We have these different words because they refer to different states of mind. Everyone knows this and understands that they are different, but you.

Stop it!
We don't assert that no gods exist.

Of course you do. Every time you claim that when you are not convinced to your satisfaction that there are any gods your "default" conclusion is that there are none. Atheist can lie about this all they want but anyone reading their posts can see plain as day that they are asserting that there are no gods unless proven otherwise. And they believe this so intently that they come here to fight with anyone that dares to propose there are. Just as you are doing.

We assert that we're unconvinced because you haven't adequately met your burden; he burden only the claimant has.

No one cares that you are "unconvinced" but you. No one cares what you think the "burden of proof" required is, but you. We all know that you won't accept ANY justification that you're given, because you're here to fight against any that any theist dares to offer. Because you are already a 'true believer' in your atheism.

The "default position" isn't my invention. It's the original position that things are not reasonably assumed to exist without evidence.

It doesn't matter who invented it. It's YOUR presumption, now. And it's not logical, nor evidential. It's just biased.

Doesn't asking for evidence before accepting an extraordinary claim seem reasonable to you?

What is unreasonable is the presumption that when you aren't getting the evidence that you demand, and that logic dictates you could never get, that this magically confirms your bias against the existence of any gods. It doesn't, of course. It only confirms that you were not being honest in asking for it in the first place.

That is not how most atheists are using the term, or what we're asserting.

I don't care how they are misusing the term. And it's exactly what they are asserting. It's why they are called, and are calling themselves atheists.

It's not how most ontologists or philosophers of religion are currently using the term.

What the *** is a "philosopher of religion"???

It's not how most atheists in RF are using the term, and most of our arguments are not based on this usage of the term.

Most of those people are lying. Both to themselves and to us. The whole reason they're here is to tell the theists that their gods don't exist.

The claim that "no gods exist" would assume a burden --

Yes, a responsibility that the atheists know they cannot rise to even as they INSIST all theists must. It's why they keep trying to hide their atheism behind double speak like "unbelief" and "atheism = skepticism" and silly sophistry about atheim being the logical default for when the theist fails to convince the atheist in the atheist's 'kangaroo courtroom' of biased debate.

But we've been explaining our position here in RF for years.

We all know your position. And why you can't just be honest about it. You aren't fooling anyone but yourselves.

 

[PureX]

As I said, the 'burden of proof' is a technical term that just means that if you make a claim, then it's up to you to justify it in some way, rather than up to other people to falsify it.

It is not a demand for absolute proof. This is basic critical thinking.

For some reason, all the self-proclaimed "critical thinkers" around here don't seem to understand this, at all. They seem to think they are put on Earth to "falsify" any claim any theist proposes because they are so thoroughly convinced that the theists are wrong ... even though they pretend that they are not convinced of this. Somehow their "highly critical minds" never seem to focus on their own absurd double-speak and blatant hypocrisy. And when anyone dares to point it out, they circle their wagons and fight to the death to negate any form of criticism toward themselves.