Atheists unite

[tbyeah]

Which is an oversimplification of the concept, an often quoted misconception based on the teapot analogy. The fundamental difference is that, like the teapot, both green dragons and blue people are defined within the parameters of our objective perception, the concept (as opposed to any given specificity therein) of God is not...therefore the same is not true of both as you suggest. Any definitive claim as to the existence or non existence of God has equal burden, as each require an attribution of a specific nature with which to define the concept in order to adequately address the question. The problem always arises that by creating that specificity of nature and defining the concept, you also narrow the definition and are only either supporting or opposing that specific interpretation of the term, rather than the objective concept itself. Essentially making either claim subjective and therefore meaningless when asked the question "Does God Exist?"

But we can define god. All religious gods, which are defined, have no evidence in proof of their existence. I reject all religious gods that have been put forward to me.

When someone makes the claim of a god (and someone was the first), what makes the burden of proof shift onto an atheist?

Christianity, Judaism and Islam essentially simply state that God is beyond mortal comprehension, thus there is no objective universal definition.

If I come up with any hypothesis and say "it is beyond mortal comprehension" it does not give it any extra weight. It is still my job to prove it, not yours to disprove.

Elmarko, why do you consider yourself an agnostic atheist rather than simply agnostic?

You reject the principle of god or no god on the basis that there is no proof either way. Is it that you understand that there is no proof of existence of god, equally no proof of the non-existence of god, but you believe there is no god?

Not aimed at me but personally I identify the same way because of of the world we live in. The state of it. It could easily be fixed by a god, so why isn't it? After all, he is omnipotent and all-loving.

 

[tbyeah]

argh

 

[tbyeah]

These posts are going all wrong. I keep forgetting about multi.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Even as an atheist i have still learned a lot from him about evolution and why religion is wrong.

But as an atheist I don't believe that for some people religion is wrong.
For the vast majority of religious people religion is a great comforter and helps them with their day to day lives.
Why take this away from the vast majority of believers?

 

[Castiel]

But we can define god. All religious gods, which are defined, have no evidence in proof of their existence. I reject all religious gods that have been put forward to me.

When someone makes the claim of a god (and someone was the first), what makes the burden of proof shift onto an atheist?

If you note, I have been rhetorically asking the question "Does God Exist?"...I also pointed out that it is the concept of God rather than any specificity applied to that concept that is important. We can all attribute differing levels of truth value subjectively to any number of specific definitions without the actual question being answered. Which is the point being made here...the question is essentially meaningless until there is a universally recognised definition of the term God.

As far as a burden of proof is concerned, any definitive claims, be they for the existence of, or the nonexistence therein are subject to such a burden. For example, if I say "God exists" then I have a burden to demonstrate why...if alternatively I say "God doesn't exist" then I also have the burden to demonstrate why....I don't have to prove why God doesn't exist simply because someone says God does exist, the same way as I don't have to prove God does exist if someone says God doesn't...but if I make a counterclaim to either proposition then I also assume the same burden to demonstrate the validity of my argument.

If I come up with any hypothesis and say "it is beyond mortal comprehension" it does not give it any extra weight. It is still my job to prove it, not yours to disprove.

No one said otherwise.

 

[McBain]

Rather give my money to charity to be honest.

 

[Nitefly]

I've pondered about my own beliefs for quite a long time.

At first I was an atheist, then an aggressive atheist, then a snooty up my own backside agnostic. Now I'm merely agnostic. After that, and it sounds kinda lame now that it's a Hollywood film, but the Life of Pi did genuinely make me assess the value of being cynical.

 

[hyster]

As far as a burden of proof is concerned, any definitive claims, be they for the existence of, or the nonexistence therein are subject to such a burden. For example, if I say "God exists" then I have a burden to demonstrate why...if alternatively I say "God doesn't exist" then I also have the burden to demonstrate why....I don't have to prove why God doesn't exist simply because someone says God does exist, the same way as I don't have to prove God does exist if someone says God doesn't...but if I make a counterclaim to either proposition then I also assume the same burden to demonstrate the validity of my argument.

I've a ton of respect for you mate but a wee bit of equivocation going on there, these are not equal terms, the burden of proof firmly lies with the theist, we have NO examples of god so agnosticism/atheism is the default position.

God is found not guilty of existing in the absence of any evidence.

 

[Nitefly]

I've a ton of respect for you mate but a wee bit of equivocation going on there, these are not equal terms, the burden of proof firmly lies with the theist, we have NO examples of god so agnosticism/atheism is the default position.

Regardless, you just have to accept it's a matter of faith. Somethings you can't prove... you just feel.

 

[hyster]

Faith is not a pathway to truth, feelings are not evidence.

Either you have proof of god or I'm finding him not guilty.

 

[Castiel]

I've a ton of respect for you mate but a wee bit of equivocation going on there, these are not equal terms, the burden of proof firmly lies with the theist, we have NO examples of god so agnosticism/atheism is the default position.

God is found not guilty of existing in the absence of any evidence.

The burden lies with the claimant. What they are claiming is immaterial. If a person claims something as definitively being The Truth, then the burden is upon them to demonstrate both the nature of that Truth and why it is The Truth.

We have lots of examples of God, all of which are subjective and ill-defined and therein lies the problem.

As the old saying goes, The absence of evidence and yadda, yadda...you don't need me to repeat it.

 

[Nitefly]

Either you have proof of god or I'm finding him not guilty.

So in other words, you cannot say, without reasonable doubt, that there is a god? That's fine dude.

But just to be clear, that's not the same as saying, without reasonable doubt, that there isn't a god

 

[Castiel]

Faith is not a pathway to truth, feelings are not evidence.

Either you have proof of god or I'm finding him not guilty.

They are proofs, subjective and ultimately unreliable and subject to change, but they are proofs nonetheless. How you define what necessitates acceptable evidence is subjective, but then so is the subject under question. As Nitefly says, doubt is fine, but doubt is no more definitive than faith.

 

[estebanrey]

If you are also making a claim in that rejection (ie There is no God) then the burden is also on you.

As far as Agnosticism/Atheism goes, it is pretty much how the individual defines themselves that is important as to all intents and purposes each overlaps and there are contrasting and contradicting views as far as definitions are concerned. Academically speaking, an atheist rejects God rather than the just the belief in God and an Agnostic simply doesn't have a belief or rejection either way. The rejection itself is explicit, and therein lies the fundamental difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic. One rejects the belief and the subject of that belief and therefore rejects acceptance thereof, the other has neither acceptance nor rejection of the belief or subject. (I am referring to the concept of God rather than any given specificity regarding that concepts nature).

Not this line of argument again.

'Academically speaking', Atheism simply means without God; it is derived from the Greek 'a-' = "without" & 'theos' = "a god". Therefore a newborn baby is an atheist, a dog is an atheist and so on. Only humans with developed brains can be theists, therefore by definition everyone else (including self-labeled agnostics) are athiest.

'Academically speaking', atheism and agnosticism aren't opposing stances. Atheism concerns belief, agnosticism concerns knowledge.

Someone who claims to either to know God doesn't exist or as you put it "rejects God" they are an anti-theist.

 

[hyster]

The burden lies with the claimant. What they are claiming is immaterial. If a person claims something as definitively being The Truth, then the burden is upon them to demonstrate both the nature of that Truth and why it is The Truth.

We have lots of examples of God, all of which are subjective and ill-defined and therein lies the problem.

As the old saying goes, The absence of evidence and yadda, yadda...you don't need me to repeat it.

Then I will leave you believing in unicorns and fairies, if all is equal as we can't disprove these either.

 

[Tonester0011]

Thunderfoot is the only one 'these' types of YT channels i watch, and that's mainly for the science videos he drops out rather than the creationists and feminist videos (though both are also top marks )
Still wouldn't donate jack, unless it was for ***** and giggles.

 

[anything I don't mind]

But as an atheist I don't believe that for some people religion is wrong.
For the vast majority of religious people religion is a great comforter and helps them with their day to day lives.
Why take this away from the vast majority of believers?

I don't agree with that. In every way, social, emotional, intellectual and so on, i do not see religion as a positive in any way. As Sam Harris has best explained (in my opinion), religion prevents humans from reaching their potential. It prevents intellectual discourse and stagnates emotional growth. I do not think the religious texts are good enough to base our ethics on and i think in terms of ethics they are not needed and only lead to people rejecting ethical concerns when they reject the ridiculous notions involved in religion texts.

 

[hyster]

So in other words, you cannot say, without reasonable doubt, that there is a god? That's fine dude.

But just to be clear, that's not the same as saying, without reasonable doubt, that there isn't a god

I would set god beside the fairies and unicorns, give the keyboard you type on the the respect that it deserves, evidence underpins science and knowledge. Faith is the not to be respected or admired.

 

[Castiel]

Not this line of argument again.

'Academically speaking', Atheism simply means without God; it is derived from the Greek 'a-' = "without" & 'theos' = "a god".

That refers only to the etymology of the word, not the inference of the terminology. The inference within the context in Greek means that the definition accepts the truth value of God in the first instance as any Classical Linguist will tell you the term relates directly to being Without God in the context of being Abandoned by God(s) or Rejecting God(s) with the Extant God(s) being the default position.

'

Academically speaking', atheism and agnosticism aren't opposing stances. Atheism concerns belief, agnosticism concerns knowledge.

No one said otherwise. In fact quite the opposite has been the position all along.

Someone who claims to either to know God doesn't exist or as you put it "rejects God" they are an anti-theist.

Again, just one term out of many and which also has more than one definition, as your wiki link states. As I said, it is largely up to the individual to define their own position, with some self identifying Atheists fulfilling the criteria above, others, like Elmarko do not. None of which changes or challenges the statement you quoted.

 

[Castiel]

Then I will leave you believing in unicorns and fairies, if all is equal as we can't disprove these either.

You have missed the underlying point of the conversation. That of universal definition of the terminology enabling a greater ability to determine the truth value of any particular and specific subject. The point was that the subject is not equal because of the context of each subjects defined nature.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."