Help me out with this statement

[SoCalExile]

It seems to me to be full of contradictions and intellectual backflips:

You're right that if someone asserts something, they should demonstrate why its true. The problem comes at this assumption you have that atheists are people who assert no god exists. When someone comes up to you and says "There is no god!" that's more then an atheists position even is. An atheist is someone who doesn't assert a god exists. It's someone who doesn't believe in a god. That's completely different then someone who asserts god doesn't exist, or someone who believes that gods don't exist. I have met an innumerable amount of atheists in my life, and yet I have not met one person EVER who believes god doesn't exist. That isn't to say that someone who would believe in no gods wouldn't be an atheist, it just is irrelevant to an atheists position. This is your mistake. You assume that an atheist believes in no god, which is wrong. Atheists just don't believe there is one. Anyone who can't tell the difference between those two things I hope is never a juror in a case of any significance. After all, they might think that because the preponderance of the evidence indicating someone is not guilty is somehow the same as the courts asserting that the person is innocent.

http://blog.minitab.com/blog/understand ... hypothesis

You're fighting a strawman position held by no one, then labeling that as some particular atheists position. It isn't.

However, if it is, your person there needs to demonstrate their wild claim that there is no god, like you said. They are still an atheist, but they are making a separate claim unrelated to atheism. Some sort of wacky counter-theistic claim, which isn't even named because nobody has it.

Granted I've had one or two head injuries in my lifetime, does this make any sense to anyone else?

[RickD]

It seems to me to be full of contradictions and intellectual backflips:

You're right that if someone asserts something, they should demonstrate why its true. The problem comes at this assumption you have that atheists are people who assert no god exists. When someone comes up to you and says "There is no god!" that's more then an atheists position even is. An atheist is someone who doesn't assert a god exists. It's someone who doesn't believe in a god. That's completely different then someone who asserts god doesn't exist, or someone who believes that gods don't exist. I have met an innumerable amount of atheists in my life, and yet I have not met one person EVER who believes god doesn't exist. That isn't to say that someone who would believe in no gods wouldn't be an atheist, it just is irrelevant to an atheists position. This is your mistake. You assume that an atheist believes in no god, which is wrong. Atheists just don't believe there is one. Anyone who can't tell the difference between those two things I hope is never a juror in a case of any significance. After all, they might think that because the preponderance of the evidence indicating someone is not guilty is somehow the same as the courts asserting that the person is innocent.

http://blog.minitab.com/blog/understand ... hypothesis

You're fighting a strawman position held by no one, then labeling that as some particular atheists position. It isn't.

However, if it is, your person there needs to demonstrate their wild claim that there is no god, like you said. They are still an atheist, but they are making a separate claim unrelated to atheism. Some sort of wacky counter-theistic claim, which isn't even named because nobody has it.

Granted I've had one or two head injuries in my lifetime, does this make any sense to anyone else?

I've had discussions about this before. To me, it's a cop out.
Atheists saying they just don't believe God exists, is the same as saying that they believe God doesn't exist. The only difference, is that if they don't say, "I believe God doesn't exist", then they don't have to defend it. By saying, "I don't believe God exists", it's not an assertion, which they claim needs no proof.
It's simply a cop out, and a cowardly way to have a belief in something, without the nads to make an argument for that belief.

[Kenny]

It seems to me to be full of contradictions and intellectual backflips:

You're right that if someone asserts something, they should demonstrate why its true. The problem comes at this assumption you have that atheists are people who assert no god exists. When someone comes up to you and says "There is no god!" that's more then an atheists position even is. An atheist is someone who doesn't assert a god exists. It's someone who doesn't believe in a god. That's completely different then someone who asserts god doesn't exist, or someone who believes that gods don't exist. I have met an innumerable amount of atheists in my life, and yet I have not met one person EVER who believes god doesn't exist. That isn't to say that someone who would believe in no gods wouldn't be an atheist, it just is irrelevant to an atheists position. This is your mistake. You assume that an atheist believes in no god, which is wrong. Atheists just don't believe there is one. Anyone who can't tell the difference between those two things I hope is never a juror in a case of any significance. After all, they might think that because the preponderance of the evidence indicating someone is not guilty is somehow the same as the courts asserting that the person is innocent.

http://blog.minitab.com/blog/understand ... hypothesis

You're fighting a strawman position held by no one, then labeling that as some particular atheists position. It isn't.

However, if it is, your person there needs to demonstrate their wild claim that there is no god, like you said. They are still an atheist, but they are making a separate claim unrelated to atheism. Some sort of wacky counter-theistic claim, which isn't even named because nobody has it.

Granted I've had one or two head injuries in my lifetime, does this make any sense to anyone else?

I believe the following is the point the person is attempting to make, and I will use myself as an example

If you ask me if I believe God exists, I will first ask you to define God, THEN I can tell you if I believe he exists or not; because what you call God very well may exist! I believe there was a story in the Bible of people worshipping a golden calf (a chunk of metal), I believe there are religions where people worship nature. etc and for me to say what these people call God doesn't exist would be foolish. I know they exist, I just don't call them God, thus I am atheist towards what they call God.
Because out of all the God claims I've heard, none of them sound credible and I don't call them God, I am considered Atheist. I hope that clears things up.

Ken

[PaulSacramento]

The dictionary is your friend:

as·sert
əˈsərt/Submit
verb
state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.

TO assert something is to state a belief or a fact in a confident and forceful way.

When any atheist states that He/She does not believe that a god exists, they are asserting that view.
Unless of course they do NOT believe it in a confident matter, ex:

Assertion: I do not believe in a god or that a god exists.
Non-assertion: I don't know if god exists but I don't think so.

[SoCalExile]

The dictionary is your friend:

as·sert
əˈsərt/Submit
verb
state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.

TO assert something is to state a belief or a fact in a confident and forceful way.

When any atheist states that He/She does not believe that a god exists, they are asserting that view.
Unless of course they do NOT believe it in a confident matter, ex:

Assertion: I do not believe in a god or that a god exists.
Non-assertion: I don't know if god exists but I don't think so.

Which is an agnostic view from what I understand.

The context of this post was a discussion on bad arguments that atheists make. My point was about how they try to avoid the burden of proof when asserting that there is no God. Of course, every one tried to weasel out of that obligation, yet maintain their status as an atheist. Seems they are so devoted to the concept of avoiding responsibility for their assertions (while trying to hold theists to imaginary ones), that they do intellectual backflips that make no sense to anyone with a concept of modal logic.

[Kenny]

The dictionary is your friend:

as·sert
əˈsərt/Submit
verb
state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.

TO assert something is to state a belief or a fact in a confident and forceful way.

When any atheist states that He/She does not believe that a god exists, they are asserting that view.
Unless of course they do NOT believe it in a confident matter, ex:

Assertion: I do not believe in a god or that a god exists.
Non-assertion: I don't know if god exists but I don't think so.

Which is an agnostic view from what I understand.

The context of this post was a discussion on bad arguments that atheists make. My point was about how they try to avoid the burden of proof when asserting that there is no God. Of course, every one tried to weasel out of that obligation, yet maintain their status as an atheist. Seems they are so devoted to the concept of avoiding responsibility for their assertions (while trying to hold theists to imaginary ones), that they do intellectual backflips that make no sense to anyone with a concept of modal logic.

Most theists will define God in a way that he can't be disproven. Is it your opinion that if a person cannot disprove the existence of God (prove a negative) they aren't atheist?

Ken

[jlay]

There is a ton in Frank Turek's new book Stealing From God on this exact objection.

Bottom line, it's bologne.

[SoCalExile]

The dictionary is your friend:

as·sert
əˈsərt/Submit
verb
state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.

TO assert something is to state a belief or a fact in a confident and forceful way.

When any atheist states that He/She does not believe that a god exists, they are asserting that view.
Unless of course they do NOT believe it in a confident matter, ex:

Assertion: I do not believe in a god or that a god exists.
Non-assertion: I don't know if god exists but I don't think so.

Which is an agnostic view from what I understand.

The context of this post was a discussion on bad arguments that atheists make. My point was about how they try to avoid the burden of proof when asserting that there is no God. Of course, every one tried to weasel out of that obligation, yet maintain their status as an atheist. Seems they are so devoted to the concept of avoiding responsibility for their assertions (while trying to hold theists to imaginary ones), that they do intellectual backflips that make no sense to anyone with a concept of modal logic.

Most theists will define God in a way that he can't be disproven. Is it your opinion that if a person cannot disprove the existence of God (prove a negative) they aren't atheist?

Ken

I was attempting to illustrate the weakness of the basic atheistic argument, which is a classic argument from ignorance, by holding them to the burden of proof. This guy tries to weasel out of that burden with logic-that-isn't-logic-but-is-logic.

[Proinsias]

Weaseling out of a 'burden of proof' seems a little harsh. It's a little like 'meet my demands or recant your position'. People choose agnosticsm/atheism/theism for a variety of reasons often wholly ignorant of, or largely unconcerned about, modal logic. It seems no more controversial than asserting theism whilst being largley ignorant of, or unconcerned with, the negative tetralemma of Indian logic.

The Stanford entry on atheism/agnosticism is quite interesting and fairly ontopic http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

[Kenny]

The dictionary is your friend:

as·sert
əˈsərt/Submit
verb
state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.

TO assert something is to state a belief or a fact in a confident and forceful way.

When any atheist states that He/She does not believe that a god exists, they are asserting that view.
Unless of course they do NOT believe it in a confident matter, ex:

Assertion: I do not believe in a god or that a god exists.
Non-assertion: I don't know if god exists but I don't think so.

Which is an agnostic view from what I understand.

The context of this post was a discussion on bad arguments that atheists make. My point was about how they try to avoid the burden of proof when asserting that there is no God. Of course, every one tried to weasel out of that obligation, yet maintain their status as an atheist. Seems they are so devoted to the concept of avoiding responsibility for their assertions (while trying to hold theists to imaginary ones), that they do intellectual backflips that make no sense to anyone with a concept of modal logic.

Most theists will define God in a way that he can't be disproven. Is it your opinion that if a person cannot disprove the existence of God (prove a negative) they aren't atheist?

Ken

I was attempting to illustrate the weakness of the basic atheistic argument, which is a classic argument from ignorance, by holding them to the burden of proof. This guy tries to weasel out of that burden with logic-that-isn't-logic-but-is-logic.

I think it would be foolish for an atheist to claim he can provide proof to the satisfaction of the believer, that his God doesn't exist.

Ken

[SoCalExile]

Weaseling out of a 'burden of proof' seems a little harsh. It's a little like 'meet my demands or recant your position'. People choose agnosticsm/atheism/theism for a variety of reasons often wholly ignorant of, or largely unconcerned about, modal logic. It seems no more controversial than asserting theism whilst being largley ignorant of, or unconcerned with, the negative tetralemma of Indian logic.

The Stanford entry on atheism/agnosticism is quite interesting and fairly ontopic http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

You're right about, "weaseling", my bad.

I agree that views about God and His existence aren't necessarily founded in pure logic. I've found that many of the most die-hard anti-theist has often suffered some emotional trauma that relates in some way to the religion targeted in their personal crusades.

Now in the discussion that prompted the post above, I merely maintained that the burden of proof was on the person making the assertion, and not always on the theist. Of course, this brought out a host of objections. Then came the assertions-without-assertion.

And as an aside, while this little list has a lot of tongue-in-cheek modal arguments, I have seen many of these: http://www.thomism.org/atheism/atheist_logic.html

[Proinsias]

To describe someone as "the most die hard anti-....." automatically conjures up notions of emotional attachment regardless of the subject matter in most cases I can think of. Might be better aiming for a dialogue instead of 'burden of proof' tennis. It would be very wearisome if someone wanting to proclaim a life free of religion would be under the burden of having to adequetaley refute the religious and philisophical underpinnings of all the major religious systems to the satisfaction of their members.

[abelcainsbrother]

To describe someone as "the most die hard anti-....." automatically conjures up notions of emotional attachment regardless of the subject matter in most cases I can think of. Might be better aiming for a dialogue instead of 'burden of proof' tennis. It would be very wearisome if someone wanting to proclaim a life free of religion would be under the burden of having to adequetaley refute the religious and philisophical underpinnings of all the major religious systems to the satisfaction of their members.

I've had them tell me they were anti-theist,also it might be wearisome but when they are claiming no God is real then it becomes belief and there are then reasons to believe it and these need to be explained,you cannot believe something for no reason and a lot of times it is from a corrupt understanding of the word of God and based on atheist talking points which is like a bible for them and they try to make you prove God is real just so they can explain it all away with talking points while they think they don't have to prove why God doesn't exist.It is a cop-out and weakness.It is just a game for them that do this and no matter how much evidence you present for God it is denied and rejected for intellectual dishonesty.It is a wonder how they can believe something so futile.

[Kenny]

,you cannot believe something for no reason.

You don't need a reason to not believe something; a failure to be convinced is all that is necessary.

Ken

[PaulSacramento]

,you cannot believe something for no reason.

You don't need a reason to not believe something; a failure to be convinced is all that is necessary.

Ken

Ken, a failure to be convinced IS a reason not to believe in something.