Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on February 23, 2012 at 6:56pm

Excellent point!

Another facet of this is:

Don't volunteer to "prove a negative".

No need to

Don't try to get away with "you can't prove a negative" either.

No need to (and it's not a universal axiom)i.e. "no, I just checked, it isn't raining".

If a theist tries to goad you with, "Okay, disprove there is a god" or attempts to shift burden of proof subtly by the ol' ploy, "Sure, I can't prove there is a god, but you can't prove there isn't one".

Put the ball back in their court:

"You haven't offered me any proof of god to disprove, the burden of proof is with the affirmative claim".

Permalink Reply by Madhukar Kulkarni on February 24, 2012 at 6:51am

Greg,

If I mention that the world will end in 2012, then my coworker will reasonably want more evidence to substantiate my claim.

If some substantiating is required to prove a point, then an infant that can not substantiate anything is neither a theist or an atheist. How can we then assert that we are born atheists?

 

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 26, 2012 at 11:07pm

Madhukar, I continue to struggle with this, even though I have rehearsed the words. 

To me, if I believe something I have thought about it and come to a conclusion about ... whatever. I use cognitive processes. 

An atheist is a non-believer. Does that imply the day I walked out of church feeling totally abandoned that all I needed was to "not-believe"? That implies all those years of trying so hard, working and struggling, and coping, and putting up with disgusting behaviors, all I had to do was not believe? 

"I don't believe there is a god and I have no obligation to submit!"

BREAKTHROUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks everybody! I'm 76 and free of that burden at last. 

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 26, 2012 at 10:48pm

Jeeze, I got an A in logic but it was because I memorized answers. Now, let me think. 

To claim belief in the existence of god implies need to justify its claim to existence. 

Joe claims to believe in the existence of god; 

Joe needs to justify Joe's claim of god's existence?   or

Joe needs to justify god's existence?

The burden of proof is on Joe.

Joe does not believe there is no god. 

Bill, the atheist (non-believer) has no burden of proof. 

Bill does not believer there is a god and has no burden of proof. 

Am I missing something here? 

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on February 26, 2012 at 11:45pm

"To claim belief in the existence of god implies need to justify its claim to existence."

God, fairies, UFOs, flying purple unicorns, magical leprechaun boot buckle dust, etc.

Burden of Proof lies with the affirmative claim. 

"Joe claims to believe in the existence of god"

= Affirmative claim

"Joe does not believe there is no god."

= Grammatically, as well as logically just restating an affirmative claim with a double-negative.

"Bill does not believe there is a god and has no burden of proof."

Correct, (to be precise he has far less burden of proof, see*) however…(new quotes-mine)

"Bill claims there are no god(s)"

= Contrapositive Claim, assuming burden of proof, as well as dancing with the logically untenable "proving a negative" problem.

"*Bill does not believe in god(s) and recognizes that while he doesn't believe in god(s), their impossibility is unknowable"

= Zero Burden of Proof

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on February 27, 2012 at 1:05am

This may help…  Matt Dillihunty is great at explaining this one. Here's a recent clip from "The Atheist Experience".

Oh! Another one, this addresses the "shifting of burden of proof".

Permalink Reply by Madhukar Kulkarni on February 24, 2012 at 6:44am

Richard Ewald

I had to be careful not use the word 'definition' because when I expressed my definition (one) of atheism, I was accused of wanting to change the definition. I f discussions take place in their right manner, sich over carefulnesw is not needed.

Now the first question I want to ask you is, if we are born as atheists, we willy nilly oscillate beteen a state of atheism that is a result of our ignorance as a child, then by virtue of family influence become theists and then by virtue of rational and free thinking, we acquire a knowledge based atheism. Is this what you mean by saying that we are born atheists? For you this may sound a silly question but for me it could be a starting point for a good discussion.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on February 24, 2012 at 7:19am

Now the first question I want to ask you is, if we are born as atheists, we willy nilly oscillate beteen a state of atheism that is a result of our ignorance as a child, then by virtue of family influence become theists and then by virtue of rational and free thinking, we acquire a knowledge based atheism. Is this what you mean by saying that we are born atheists? For you this may sound a silly question but for me it could be a starting point for a good discussion.

That sounds like a fairly good summation of the situation, yes.

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on February 24, 2012 at 3:27pm

No need for citing definitions, or making 'em up either. Contextual logic will do, and the law of parsimony/Ockham's Razor.

"...then by virtue of family influence become theists..."

- Is also not necessitated.

"...and then by virtue of rational and free thinking, we acquire a knowledge based atheism."

- Nor this, rationality and freethinking won't give you a knowledge based position, all those things can do is provide you with heuristics that help to justify the non-belief.

"Knowledge-based" requires evidence. There are already two words for this dichotomy -gnostic/agnostic.  

Again (…context = T. Huxley), agnosticism is not a middle-ground between atheism/theism.

It's like this:

"Is this what you mean by saying that we are born atheists?"

No, I'm saying, non-belief/negation is the default (null) position of the two possible positions in the premise as it is an "believe in" existential claim/negation proposition.

You want to place "knowledge" on an axis where it doesn't belong (wrong context), knowledge already has its own axis (see above).

Perhaps a Venn Diagram will better clarify:

Do you see the green area?

That represents where null resides as it's the only position with zero burden of proof.

Not knowing/believing.

We're all born to it.

Q.E.D.

Permalink Reply by Madhukar Kulkarni on February 25, 2012 at 12:31am

Richard Ewald

I have seen your reply just now and want to admit that I will take some time to reply. Your reply is complete and more brilliant than I have seen any reply in A N, so let me give it due respect and think over a bit before I reply.

Permalink Reply by Madhukar Kulkarni on February 25, 2012 at 9:10am

Richard Ewald

I have seen all the above figures and read your comments and my first impression has vanished. You have created a nice web that can make one confused. I do not mean to say that this is done deliberstely, but, none-the-less this can happen.

I may agree that the green area of the venn Diagram represents a null point but there is nothing to establish that that is our position at birth. Again, here you may argue that the word 'null' signifies it, but this can not be accepted on the basis of words alone. It has to be practically shown why this position shows our position at birth. You are being purely theoretical on this point without taking any practical example.

I am unable to paste a diagram drawn by me in Word/Paint/Autocad here so I will have to depend on words alone.

Imagine an electrical meter having a null point at the middle of the scale. Then, one end of the scale would be atheism and the opposite end of the scale would be theism. This would be a realistic graphical representation of a null point. This null point would also realistically represent our position at birth. You know," Doesn't claim proof exists" and "doesn't believe in god" are not our true positions at birth because an infant canot take either of the positions. This is real practicality that can not be wished away to depend merely on imagined theories.

If such a diagram as I have described is drawn, then it becomes clear that movement from a null position in any direction can not come without reason. You may take whatever meaning of the word reason here.  Such a model would clearly and truely demonstrate that an infant is neither an atheist nor a theist, and is simply at a null point which lies in betwee the two.

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on February 26, 2012 at 11:01am

1. Not know/not believe is not …complex.
2. That the negation of an existential "believe in" claim is the default (null) is a logical axiom.
3. Does an infant believe in god = no
4. Can an infant know that god does or doesn't exist = no
5. Q.E.D.

We are born to an atheist position. 

"Imagine an electrical meter having a null point at the middle of the scale. Then, one end of the scale would be atheism and the opposite end of the scale would be theism. This would be a realistic graphical representation of a null point. This null point would also realistically represent our position at birth."

Yes! …don't forget though, null means "not yes". The middle-ground of this meter is null, atheism is also, "not yes". If you try to argue that it also represents "not no", …you are introducing a third position, where there are only two possible.

"You know," Doesn't claim proof exists" and "doesn't believe in god" are not our true positions at birth because an infant canot take either of the positions."

They don't have to "take" those positions, they are born to them, it is self-evident.

"This is real practicality that can not be wished away to depend merely on imagined theories."

It would be prudent for you to read your reasoning again to realize that it is based on wishful thinking.

"If such a diagram as I have described is drawn, then it becomes clear that movement from a null position in any direction can not come without reason. You may take whatever meaning of the word reason here.  Such a model would clearly and truely demonstrate that an infant is neither an atheist nor a theist, and is simply at a null point which lies in betwee the two."

That point (null) is non-belief.

Your premise assumes three positions (conclusions) where there are only two, and it still falls flat, as it doesn't recognize that the middle position is no different from negation. Let's try an even simpler electronic circuit analogy...

Like a single pull/single throw light switch. on = belief, off = non-belief, what (as opposed to electrical current) is being switched on/off is belief.

The absence of belief is represented by off

When there is no current present (belief) at the switch, it makes no difference whether it is in the off position or the on position, the default is off = non-belief.

There's a reason that moving from a position of belief to non-belief is called "deconversion".

Having never acquired a theist position in my life, I have always been an atheist, from birth.

Have you ever been a believer? 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page