Granted I've had one or two head injuries in my lifetime, does this make any sense to anyone else?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.
Help me out with this statement
-
- Valued Member
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:20 pm
- Christian: Yes
Help me out with this statement
It seems to me to be full of contradictions and intellectual backflips:
God's grace is not cheap; it's free.
- RickD
- Make me a Sammich Member
- Posts: 22063
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Kitchen
Re: Help me out with this statement
I've had discussions about this before. To me, it's a cop out.SoCalExile wrote:It seems to me to be full of contradictions and intellectual backflips:Granted I've had one or two head injuries in my lifetime, does this make any sense to anyone else?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.
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.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
-
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 3755
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
- Christian: No
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Re: Help me out with this statement
I believe the following is the point the person is attempting to make, and I will use myself as an exampleSoCalExile wrote:It seems to me to be full of contradictions and intellectual backflips:Granted I've had one or two head injuries in my lifetime, does this make any sense to anyone else?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.
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
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
-
- Board Moderator
- Posts: 9224
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Help me out with this statement
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.
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.
-
- Valued Member
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:20 pm
- Christian: Yes
Re: Help me out with this statement
Which is an agnostic view from what I understand.PaulSacramento wrote: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.
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.
God's grace is not cheap; it's free.
-
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 3755
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
- Christian: No
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Re: Help me out with this statement
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?SoCalExile wrote:PaulSacramento wrote: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.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
- jlay
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 3613
- Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:47 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Re: Help me out with this statement
There is a ton in Frank Turek's new book Stealing From God on this exact objection.
Bottom line, it's bologne.
Bottom line, it's bologne.
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord
"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
-
- Valued Member
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:20 pm
- Christian: Yes
Re: Help me out with this statement
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.Kenny wrote: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?SoCalExile wrote:PaulSacramento wrote: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.
Ken
God's grace is not cheap; it's free.
-
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 889
- Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:09 pm
- Christian: No
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
- Location: Scotland
Re: Help me out with this statement
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/
The Stanford entry on atheism/agnosticism is quite interesting and fairly ontopic http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
-
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 3755
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
- Christian: No
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Re: Help me out with this statement
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.SoCalExile wrote: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.Kenny wrote: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?SoCalExile wrote:PaulSacramento wrote: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.
Ken
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
-
- Valued Member
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:20 pm
- Christian: Yes
Re: Help me out with this statement
You're right about, "weaseling", my bad.Proinsias wrote: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/
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
God's grace is not cheap; it's free.
-
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 889
- Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:09 pm
- Christian: No
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
- Location: Scotland
Re: Help me out with this statement
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.
-
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 5020
- Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Gap Theory
Re: Help me out with this statement
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.Proinsias wrote: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.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
-
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 3755
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
- Christian: No
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Re: Help me out with this statement
You don't need a reason to not believe something; a failure to be convinced is all that is necessary.abelcainsbrother wrote:,you cannot believe something for no reason.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
-
- Board Moderator
- Posts: 9224
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Help me out with this statement
Ken, a failure to be convinced IS a reason not to believe in something.Kenny wrote:You don't need a reason to not believe something; a failure to be convinced is all that is necessary.abelcainsbrother wrote:,you cannot believe something for no reason.
Ken