1712 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

1. Definition of Atheism.
http://www.longecity...post__p__502597

2. Atheism isn’t a belief so needs no evidence.
http://www.longecity...post__p__502824

3. You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...post__p__503352

4. The Burden of Proof Is not on the Atheist because they don’t believe in anything.

Another familiar strategy of atheists is to insist that the burden of proof falls only on the believer. If that’s right, it may allow the Atheists to avoid evidentialism’s requirements, and rationally maintain atheism without evidence. But is it right?

You can see Atheists play the "why game," most of us learned as children. All you have to do is ask a version of “why,” any time any theist makes a statement about God. Does the Atheist also get to play? No because Atheists clame they don’t believe anything and have no burden of proof.

The concept of ‘burden of proof’ (Latin, onus probandi) originally goes back to classical Roman law, and it remains important in legal theory. Who has the burden of proof, and what it consists of, is determined by a judge or by established rules which vary across legal systems. The same is true of formal debates which occur in a variety of formats. The idea of ‘burden of proof’ also has application in non-formal settings; for example, in academic disputes or public controversies. However, without a judge or rules to determine who has the burden and how it is to be discharged, it becomes unclear how the concept is to be applied, or even whether it has clear application.

Yet although the concept of burden of proof in informal settings is ill-understood, that does not stop many from confidently proclaiming how the burden of proof should be assigned. The most egregious mistake is to think that it is a matter of logic. Rather, the burden of proof is a methodological or procedural concept. It is, in Nicolas Rescher’s words, “a regulative principle of rationality in the context of argumentation, a ground rule, as it were, of the process of rational controversy” (Dialectics, 1977). Another error is to presume that the burden falls on whoever is making the grammatically positive statement. However, positive statements can often be translated reasonably faithfully into negative statements, and vice versa: the statement ‘everything happens for a reason’ can be expressed as ‘there are no coincidences’, and ‘there is nothing supernatural’ can be restated as ‘reality is wholly natural’. A third problem is that to be taken seriously many negative statements – ‘there are no atoms’, ‘there are no coincidences’ – require evidence, whereas the corresponding positive statements do not.

It is sometimes said that one acquires a burden of proof if one’s statement runs counter to received opinion, and it does seem that burden of proof often falls in this way. But this proposal has problems too – one being that a person can legitimately take on a burden of defending a widely-held position to those who are ignorant of it or its defense (teachers do this, for example). It may be that the best we can hope for is something like the following: in situations in which participants to a discussion are expected to take seriously the claims made by other parties, all participants bear a burden to provide support for their claims, if asked (see James Cargile’s paper ‘On the Burden of Proof’ in Philosophy 72, 1997).

The concept of burden of proof in informal settings is too complicated to sort out here in this post, but fortunately, we don’t have to, because the question of which side has the burden of proof in an argument is largely independent of the question of what evidence is required to rationally believe any of the positions. Suppose for example that someone claims the negative, that there are no electrons, and that person bears the burden of proof. It’s not the case that so long as their burden hasn’t been discharged people can rationally believe that electrons exist without evidence. On the contrary, as evidentialism says, evidence is required for the belief to be justified even if there is no burden to defend the belief. This means that even if the burden of proof never falls on the atheist in disputes with theists (something we have so far found no reason to believe), it does not follow from that fact that atheists can rationally believe without evidence that there is no God or other divine reality. Consequently, the concept of burden of proof is also of no use to the Atheists in avoiding the demands of evidentialism. Where is the evidence?

What about Ockham’s Razor, the principle of parsimony associated with the medieval philosopher and monk, William of Ockham. Is Atheism the simplest answer and God is something made up like the Spaghetti Monster? The simplest answer is to be preferred?

[johnross47]

Your tortured "logic" is like a sack full of snakes, contorted, poisonous and constantly wriggling. I'm probably wasting my time arguing with you; proselytizers like you are beyond the reach of normally accepted procedures of discussion, but I'll try to put it in simple comparative terms. I propose that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden and I want you to believe this. Are you suggesting that it is incumbent on you to demonstrate the falsehood of that statement, rather than on me to produce evidence for it. Does your denial of responsibility entitle me to label and abuse you?

The big question really, is, what the hell are you doing on this forum?

[shadowhawk]

Your tortured "logic" is like a sack full of snakes, contorted, poisonous and constantly wriggling. I'm probably wasting my time arguing with you; proselytizers like you are beyond the reach of normally accepted procedures of discussion, but I'll try to put it in simple comparative terms. I propose that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden and I want you to believe this. Are you suggesting that it is incumbent on you to demonstrate the falsehood of that statement, rather than on me to produce evidence for it. Does your denial of responsibility entitle me to label and abuse you?

The big question really, is, what the hell are you doing on this forum?

Is this an argument or simply name calling by someone with nothing but one Logical Fallacy after another

Do you believe in fairies? If you are making them up, no I don’t believe it but if you have really seen them in your garden, I would need more information to evaluate what is going on. I am not the one seeing fairies so what evidence do you have? So my addressing your clam of fairies in your garden entitles you to abuse me? Interesting but off topic. I would be interested in finding some help for you.

What am I doing in this forum? Is this a serious question? Can’t you figure that out? I assume the same reasons as you but your questions make me wonder.

[johnross47]

Are you really that stupid? Have you really convinced yourself that this mountain of nonsense is a fabulous argument? All that verbiage about the equivalence of positive and negative versions of statements is totally irrelevant. You are completely misrepresenting the position of atheists and twisting words into preposterous constructions to force us into positions we do not hold. There were some similar religious obsessives in UK recently who tried to argue that atheism was a form of faith. It isn't. It is simply a statement that a proposal made by somebody else has no substance. When asked who made the universe our answer would simply be," I don't know. What makes you think it was made by anybody?" Not knowing something does not entitle you to just make up an answer. "Who did the washing up?" "I don't know; it must have been God." ("Who, by the way is all powerful superman type being......don't ask how I know, I just know. I have faith")
It doesn't matter how high you pile shit; it is still shit.

[hooter]

Are you really that stupid? Have you really convinced yourself that this mountain of nonsense is a fabulous argument? All that verbiage about the equivalence of positive and negative versions of statements is totally irrelevant. You are completely misrepresenting the position of atheists and twisting words into preposterous constructions to force us into positions we do not hold. There were some similar religious obsessives in UK recently who tried to argue that atheism was a form of faith. It isn't. It is simply a statement that a proposal made by somebody else has no substance. When asked who made the universe our answer would simply be," I don't know. What makes you think it was made by anybody?" Not knowing something does not entitle you to just make up an answer. "Who did the washing up?" "I don't know; it must have been God." ("Who, by the way is all powerful superman type being......don't ask how I know, I just know. I have faith")
It doesn't matter how high you pile shit; it is still shit.

This is why I argue that it's a brain abnormality related to serotonin and emotional perception. Their brain produced a natural transcendent state akin to a mild version of entheogen ingestion. The neurophysiological basis is the same. Because serotonin regulates the 'color' of emotional experience, excessive serotonin turnover can cause unnatural perceptive states. It seems that this is an overclocked version of a self referential perception. This is part of how hallucinogens work and exactly what they do.

I propose that religious belief is low receptor density related to a certain receptor. (More receptor selective hallucinogens do not cause religious experiences)
The downregulation of this receptor could have been induced by evolutionary use of upregulating agents (naturally occuring psychedelic plants and fungi).

Because this belief is connected to the fundamental perception of the ego, you cannot argue or even dent it. There is no way of receding from it unless the experience is first modified. The autonomic perception of assuming experience as truth is inevitable. They feel a certain way, an emotion that results from an excess of neurotransmitters. This is why people get 'high' off religion. It's self-referential projection, the most arrogant coping mechanism of all. You think you know better than me? My sky dad will crush you like bug.

I don't understand the atheists that are like, oh well they can believe what they want. This is completely mind boggling to me. You don't say this about 9/11 conspiracy theories or reptilian government illuminati cults even though the evidence for all of them is literally the same. God is a linguistic construct, there is nothing encoded in nature that suggests a creator. There is nothing that suggests any of this. Despite evidence they never back down. I find this to be quite possibly the scariest phenomenon on earth. Take this example. In Iran you are not allowed to execute a female virgin for any crime. This is religious law.

In the Islamic Republic it is illegal to execute a young woman, regardless of her crime, if she is a virgin, he explained. Therefore a “wedding” ceremony is conducted the night before the execution: The young girl is forced to have sexual intercourse with a prison guard – essentially raped by her “husband.”

Only in a religious delusional mind can someone come up with a government system that fully enforces the LAW of raping virgins before executing them. While any militia group might engage in such behaviour, this is the government of a country methodically instituting rape. If you don't understand how this is far worse than anything possible through secular reasoning, then may your illusory god help you. You are lost.

Religion poisons everything and infiltrates everything like a greedy worm. It is a parasite leeching off those that experience transcendent emotional states.You can't force a depressed person to cheer up, a manic person to calm down or a schizophrenic to stop seeing spiders everywhere. It's an emotional state that has been historically abused into mass control, warfare and the glazy eyed veneer of piety. The religious love out of fear, an emotional feedback reaction with no parallel. How do you not feel extremely uncomfortable when confronted with religion??? Have you seen a church? Have you seen a catholic wake where the children have to kiss the corpse? Religion is the most deranged idea humanity has ever come up with, and history agrees with me.

Edited by hooter, 29 February 2012 - 01:36 AM.

[hooter]

Shadowhawk, if god told you to kill your family, would you do it? Answer truthfully.

[shadowhawk]

Are you really that stupid? Have you really convinced yourself that this mountain of nonsense is a fabulous argument? All that verbiage about the equivalence of positive and negative versions of statements is totally irrelevant. You are completely misrepresenting the position of atheists and twisting words into preposterous constructions to force us into positions we do not hold. There were some similar religious obsessives in UK recently who tried to argue that atheism was a form of faith. It isn't. It is simply a statement that a proposal made by somebody else has no substance. When asked who made the universe our answer would simply be," I don't know. What makes you think it was made by anybody?" Not knowing something does not entitle you to just make up an answer. "Who did the washing up?" "I don't know; it must have been God." ("Who, by the way is all powerful superman type being......don't ask how I know, I just know. I have faith")
It doesn't matter how high you pile shit; it is still shit.

What profound arguments. Not one argument here that relates to anything I said. Empty logical Fallacies. Relate to one thing I said, otherwise ho hum

[hooter]

There's no point in arguing with you but I'm glad it's therapeutic for you.

Edited by hooter, 29 February 2012 - 02:00 AM.

[johnross47]

Are you really that stupid? Have you really convinced yourself that this mountain of nonsense is a fabulous argument? All that verbiage about the equivalence of positive and negative versions of statements is totally irrelevant. You are completely misrepresenting the position of atheists and twisting words into preposterous constructions to force us into positions we do not hold. There were some similar religious obsessives in UK recently who tried to argue that atheism was a form of faith. It isn't. It is simply a statement that a proposal made by somebody else has no substance. When asked who made the universe our answer would simply be," I don't know. What makes you think it was made by anybody?" Not knowing something does not entitle you to just make up an answer. "Who did the washing up?" "I don't know; it must have been God." ("Who, by the way is all powerful superman type being......don't ask how I know, I just know. I have faith")
It doesn't matter how high you pile shit; it is still shit.

What profound arguments. Not one argument here that relates to anything I said. Empty logical Fallacies. Relate to one thing I said, otherwise ho hum

If I was marking your posts as a first year philosophy paper I would stop after a few lines because it basically requires a book's worth of analysis and explication to pick apart the massive entangled mass of errors. I would ask for a total rewrite. You are doing something we used to do as children.....black=dark=dull=dim=faint=pale=light=white therefore black = white. This amused us when we were ten as did dividing by infinity. I said that your remarks about positive and negative expressions of an idea were irrelevant because essentially this an empty point dependent on the flexibility of English. If you convert these variations into formal logic, their identity becomes clear.

Edited by johnross47, 29 February 2012 - 09:46 AM.

[hooter]

If I was marking your posts as a first year philosophy paper I would stop after a few lines because it basically requires a book's worth of analysis and explication to pick apart the massive entangled mass of errors. I would ask for a total rewrite. You are doing something we used to do as children.....black=dark=dull=dim=faint=pale=light=white therefore black = white. This amused us when we were ten as did dividing by infinity. I said that your remarks about positive and negative expressions of an idea were irrelevant because essentially this an empty point dependent on the flexibility of English. If you convert these variations into formal logic, their identity becomes clear.

This. He's just throwing out words. If he were asked to put his thoughts into symbolic logic he would be laughed out of here...

[shadowhawk]

Are you really that stupid? Have you really convinced yourself that this mountain of nonsense is a fabulous argument? All that verbiage about the equivalence of positive and negative versions of statements is totally irrelevant. You are completely misrepresenting the position of atheists and twisting words into preposterous constructions to force us into positions we do not hold. There were some similar religious obsessives in UK recently who tried to argue that atheism was a form of faith. It isn't. It is simply a statement that a proposal made by somebody else has no substance. When asked who made the universe our answer would simply be," I don't know. What makes you think it was made by anybody?" Not knowing something does not entitle you to just make up an answer. "Who did the washing up?" "I don't know; it must have been God." ("Who, by the way is all powerful superman type being......don't ask how I know, I just know. I have faith")
It doesn't matter how high you pile shit; it is still shit.

What profound arguments. Not one argument here that relates to anything I said. Empty logical Fallacies. Relate to one thing I said, otherwise ho hum

If I was marking your posts as a first year philosophy paper I would stop after a few lines because it basically requires a book's worth of analysis and explication to pick apart the massive entangled mass of errors. I would ask for a total rewrite. You are doing something we used to do as children.....black=dark=dull=dim=faint=pale=light=white therefore black = white. This amused us when we were ten as did dividing by infinity. I said that your remarks about positive and negative expressions of an idea were irrelevant because essentially this an empty point dependent on the flexibility of English. If you convert these variations into formal logic, their identity becomes clear.

Oh good someone who volunteers to grade my posts...nope just like everything else no there, there. Where is the evidence? So far none. You have said absolutely nothing bit create straw men and Logical Fallacies. Now you are talking babu talk. Off topic.

Try again, but try to stay on topic and try to say something.

What I have said about the subject:

1. Definition of Atheism.
http://www.longecity...post__p__502597

2. Atheism isn’t a belief so needs no evidence?
http://www.longecity...post__p__502824

3. You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...post__p__503352

4. The Burden of Proof Is not on the Atheist because they don’t believe in anything?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504130

[shadowhawk]

If I was marking your posts as a first year philosophy paper I would stop after a few lines because it basically requires a book's worth of analysis and explication to pick apart the massive entangled mass of errors. I would ask for a total rewrite. You are doing something we used to do as children.....black=dark=dull=dim=faint=pale=light=white therefore black = white. This amused us when we were ten as did dividing by infinity. I said that your remarks about positive and negative expressions of an idea were irrelevant because essentially this an empty point dependent on the flexibility of English. If you convert these variations into formal logic, their identity becomes clear.

This. He's just throwing out words. If he were asked to put his thoughts into symbolic logic he would be laughed out of here...

You show us how. Off topic.

Edited by shadowhawk, 29 February 2012 - 07:51 PM.

[hooter]

If I was marking your posts as a first year philosophy paper I would stop after a few lines because it basically requires a book's worth of analysis and explication to pick apart the massive entangled mass of errors. I would ask for a total rewrite. You are doing something we used to do as children.....black=dark=dull=dim=faint=pale=light=white therefore black = white. This amused us when we were ten as did dividing by infinity. I said that your remarks about positive and negative expressions of an idea were irrelevant because essentially this an empty point dependent on the flexibility of English. If you convert these variations into formal logic, their identity becomes clear.

This. He's just throwing out words. If he were asked to put his thoughts into symbolic logic he would be laughed out of here...

You show us how. Off topic.

You incredible moron that's not off topic, that is the entire topic. You just can't handle it, so you say you're not interested or it's off topic. You don't understand how discourse works, you just want to blab and blab and silence everyone else. This has been the pattern of religious oppression since the dawn of mankind.You're not a pioneer whatsoever. This is honestly too much, I feel like I'm arguing with a child. I'm honestly just embarrassed for you.

Shadowhawk: Off topic off topic off topic off topic, OFF TOPIC!! I'm not interested!!

Don't phrase the title in a questioning sense if you don't want answers. Just write "l indiscriminately believe in invisible friends who look out for me' and go on your puerile little repetitive diatribe. I honestly think you should consider antipsychotics because at this point it's honestly going into full delusional territory.

I'm just going to pretend you're doing this to piss people off on this forum, or 'trolling'. This will help me sleep at night. No adult can be this naive. There's just no way. Maybe if you admit that you're joking or are 12 years old I might be inclined to believe you. But honestly if you're posting outside of a mental facility I doubt you're being serious.

Edited by hooter, 29 February 2012 - 08:08 PM.

[shadowhawk]

If I was marking your posts as a first year philosophy paper I would stop after a few lines because it basically requires a book's worth of analysis and explication to pick apart the massive entangled mass of errors. I would ask for a total rewrite. You are doing something we used to do as children.....black=dark=dull=dim=faint=pale=light=white therefore black = white. This amused us when we were ten as did dividing by infinity. I said that your remarks about positive and negative expressions of an idea were irrelevant because essentially this an empty point dependent on the flexibility of English. If you convert these variations into formal logic, their identity becomes clear.

This. He's just throwing out words. If he were asked to put his thoughts into symbolic logic he would be laughed out of here...

You show us how. Off topic.

You incredible moron that's not off topic, that is the entire topic. You just can't handle it, so you say you're not interested or it's off topic. You don't understand how discourse works, you just want to blab and blab and silence everyone else. This has been the pattern of religious oppression since the dawn of mankind.You're not a pioneer whatsoever. This is honestly too much, I feel like I'm arguing with a child. I'm honestly just embarrassed for you.

Shadowhawk: Off topic off topic off topic off topic, OFF TOPIC!! I'm not interested!!

Don't phrase the title in a questioning sense if you don't want answers. Just write "l indiscriminately believe in invisible friends who look out for me' and go on your puerile little repetitive diatribe. I honestly think you should consider antipsychotics because at this point it's honestly going into full delusional territory.

I'm just going to pretend you're doing this to piss people off on this forum, or 'trolling'. This will help me sleep at night. No adult can be this naive. There's just no way. Maybe if you admit that you're joking or are 12 years old I might be inclined to believe you. But honestly if you're posting outside of a mental facility I doubt you're being serious.

I do want answers. Where is your evidence?

[shadowhawk]

1. Definition of Atheism.
http://www.longecity...post__p__502597

2. Atheism isn’t a belief so needs no evidence.?
http://www.longecity...post__p__502824

3. You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...post__p__503352

4. The Burden of Proof Is not on the Atheist because they don’t believe in anything?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504130

5. Ockham’s Razor

What about Ockham’s Razor, the principle of parsimony associated with the medieval philosopher and monk, William of Ockham? I mentioned this in my last post #4. His principle is often expressed as, “Do not multiply entities beyond necessity”? Can this help? The idea, presumably, is that if a conception of reality without any divine being contains the resources necessary to explain everything that needs explaining (a proposition Ockham would have vehemently denied!) then Ockham’s Razor licenses us to exclude all references to the divine in our explanatory accounts. Might this maneuver justify atheism without evidence?

No. The trouble is that Ockham’s Razor is of little use in disputes over whether some entity X exists. That is because it is typically an open question in such disputes whether everything that needs explaining can in fact be explained without X. Theists believe, or at least suspect, that there are features of reality which are inexplicable without appeal to a divine being: the existence of a contingent universe, the fine-tuning of physical constants, etc. We need not decide here whether a divine being is needed to explain these things: what is important is just that the Razor itself cannot decide such matters. It comes into play only assuming that a complete explanation of the relevant phenomena is possible without X; at which point it licenses us to eliminate X from our ontology. But theists will not accept that a complete explanation of reality is possible without appeal to a divine being, so long as no compelling case for that claim has been made. So Ockham’s Razor can have no persuasive force in this debate. Is there evidence for Atheism? Ockhams Razor gives us no help, even though Atheists love to quote the monk.

[shadowhawk]

AFTER BEING COMPARED TO "SHOCK OF GOD," WHOM I NEVER HEARD OF, I FOUND HIM. WOW!!! NOT ME...maybe a little? No!

Is Richard Dawkins still an Atheist??? Did he have no evidence? I don't know. See Shock's site.

http://www.youtube.c...d?feature=watch

Edited by shadowhawk, 29 February 2012 - 09:34 PM.

[johnross47]

1. Definition of Atheism.
http://www.longecity...post__p__502597

2. Atheism isn’t a belief so needs no evidence.
http://www.longecity...post__p__502824

3. You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...post__p__503352

4. The Burden of Proof Is not on the Atheist because they don’t believe in anything.

Another familiar strategy of atheists is to insist that the burden of proof falls only on the believer. If that’s right, it may allow the Atheists to avoid evidentialism’s requirements, and rationally maintain atheism without evidence. But is it right?

You can see Atheists play the "why game," most of us learned as children. All you have to do is ask a version of “why,” any time any theist makes a statement about God. Does the Atheist also get to play? No because Atheists clame they don’t believe anything and have no burden of proof.

The concept of ‘burden of proof’ (Latin, onus probandi) originally goes back to classical Roman law, and it remains important in legal theory. Who has the burden of proof, and what it consists of, is determined by a judge or by established rules which vary across legal systems. The same is true of formal debates which occur in a variety of formats. The idea of ‘burden of proof’ also has application in non-formal settings; for example, in academic disputes or public controversies. However, without a judge or rules to determine who has the burden and how it is to be discharged, it becomes unclear how the concept is to be applied, or even whether it has clear application.

Yet although the concept of burden of proof in informal settings is ill-understood, that does not stop many from confidently proclaiming how the burden of proof should be assigned. The most egregious mistake is to think that it is a matter of logic. Rather, the burden of proof is a methodological or procedural concept. It is, in Nicolas Rescher’s words, “a regulative principle of rationality in the context of argumentation, a ground rule, as it were, of the process of rational controversy” (Dialectics, 1977). Another error is to presume that the burden falls on whoever is making the grammatically positive statement. However, positive statements can often be translated reasonably faithfully into negative statements, and vice versa: the statement ‘everything happens for a reason’ can be expressed as ‘there are no coincidences’, and ‘there is nothing supernatural’ can be restated as ‘reality is wholly natural’. A third problem is that to be taken seriously many negative statements – ‘there are no atoms’, ‘there are no coincidences’ – require evidence, whereas the corresponding positive statements do not.

It is sometimes said that one acquires a burden of proof if one’s statement runs counter to received opinion, and it does seem that burden of proof often falls in this way. But this proposal has problems too – one being that a person can legitimately take on a burden of defending a widely-held position to those who are ignorant of it or its defense (teachers do this, for example). It may be that the best we can hope for is something like the following: in situations in which participants to a discussion are expected to take seriously the claims made by other parties, all participants bear a burden to provide support for their claims, if asked (see James Cargile’s paper ‘On the Burden of Proof’ in Philosophy 72, 1997).

The concept of burden of proof in informal settings is too complicated to sort out here in this post, but fortunately, we don’t have to, because the question of which side has the burden of proof in an argument is largely independent of the question of what evidence is required to rationally believe any of the positions. Suppose for example that someone claims the negative, that there are no electrons, and that person bears the burden of proof. It’s not the case that so long as their burden hasn’t been discharged people can rationally believe that electrons exist without evidence. On the contrary, as evidentialism says, evidence is required for the belief to be justified even if there is no burden to defend the belief. This means that even if the burden of proof never falls on the atheist in disputes with theists (something we have so far found no reason to believe), it does not follow from that fact that atheists can rationally believe without evidence that there is no God or other divine reality. Consequently, the concept of burden of proof is also of no use to the Atheists in avoiding the demands of evidentialism. Where is the evidence?

What about Ockham’s Razor, the principle of parsimony associated with the medieval philosopher and monk, William of Ockham. Is Atheism the simplest answer and God is something made up like the Spaghetti Monster? The simplest answer is to be preferred?

If we treat "reality is wholly natural" as P then "there is nothing supernatural" is NOT NOT P....which is clearly the same as P. That is why your examples were irrelevant nonsense. These statements are not opposites! Quoting examples such as denying the existence of atoms is also pointless, since no serious person is denying them. ( I have heard religious people deny gravity but I suspect it was a spoof) If I denied something that was regarded as established fact, such as evolution, I would obviously be expected to provide evidence for my claim. But god is not an established fact; his positers have never produced any evidence.

[shadowhawk]

1. Definition of Atheism.
http://www.longecity...post__p__502597

2. Atheism isn’t a belief so needs no evidence.
http://www.longecity...post__p__502824

3. You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...post__p__503352

4. The Burden of Proof Is not on the Atheist because they don’t believe in anything.

Another familiar strategy of atheists is to insist that the burden of proof falls only on the believer. If that’s right, it may allow the Atheists to avoid evidentialism’s requirements, and rationally maintain atheism without evidence. But is it right?

You can see Atheists play the "why game," most of us learned as children. All you have to do is ask a version of “why,” any time any theist makes a statement about God. Does the Atheist also get to play? No because Atheists clame they don’t believe anything and have no burden of proof.

The concept of ‘burden of proof’ (Latin, onus probandi) originally goes back to classical Roman law, and it remains important in legal theory. Who has the burden of proof, and what it consists of, is determined by a judge or by established rules which vary across legal systems. The same is true of formal debates which occur in a variety of formats. The idea of ‘burden of proof’ also has application in non-formal settings; for example, in academic disputes or public controversies. However, without a judge or rules to determine who has the burden and how it is to be discharged, it becomes unclear how the concept is to be applied, or even whether it has clear application.

Yet although the concept of burden of proof in informal settings is ill-understood, that does not stop many from confidently proclaiming how the burden of proof should be assigned. The most egregious mistake is to think that it is a matter of logic. Rather, the burden of proof is a methodological or procedural concept. It is, in Nicolas Rescher’s words, “a regulative principle of rationality in the context of argumentation, a ground rule, as it were, of the process of rational controversy” (Dialectics, 1977). Another error is to presume that the burden falls on whoever is making the grammatically positive statement. However, positive statements can often be translated reasonably faithfully into negative statements, and vice versa: the statement ‘everything happens for a reason’ can be expressed as ‘there are no coincidences’, and ‘there is nothing supernatural’ can be restated as ‘reality is wholly natural’. A third problem is that to be taken seriously many negative statements – ‘there are no atoms’, ‘there are no coincidences’ – require evidence, whereas the corresponding positive statements do not.

It is sometimes said that one acquires a burden of proof if one’s statement runs counter to received opinion, and it does seem that burden of proof often falls in this way. But this proposal has problems too – one being that a person can legitimately take on a burden of defending a widely-held position to those who are ignorant of it or its defense (teachers do this, for example). It may be that the best we can hope for is something like the following: in situations in which participants to a discussion are expected to take seriously the claims made by other parties, all participants bear a burden to provide support for their claims, if asked (see James Cargile’s paper ‘On the Burden of Proof’ in Philosophy 72, 1997).

The concept of burden of proof in informal settings is too complicated to sort out here in this post, but fortunately, we don’t have to, because the question of which side has the burden of proof in an argument is largely independent of the question of what evidence is required to rationally believe any of the positions. Suppose for example that someone claims the negative, that there are no electrons, and that person bears the burden of proof. It’s not the case that so long as their burden hasn’t been discharged people can rationally believe that electrons exist without evidence. On the contrary, as evidentialism says, evidence is required for the belief to be justified even if there is no burden to defend the belief. This means that even if the burden of proof never falls on the atheist in disputes with theists (something we have so far found no reason to believe), it does not follow from that fact that atheists can rationally believe without evidence that there is no God or other divine reality. Consequently, the concept of burden of proof is also of no use to the Atheists in avoiding the demands of evidentialism. Where is the evidence?

What about Ockham’s Razor, the principle of parsimony associated with the medieval philosopher and monk, William of Ockham. Is Atheism the simplest answer and God is something made up like the Spaghetti Monster? The simplest answer is to be preferred?

If we treat "reality is wholly natural" as P then "there is nothing supernatural" is NOT NOT P....which is clearly the same as P. That is why your examples were irrelevant nonsense. These statements are not opposites! Quoting examples such as denying the existence of atoms is also pointless, since no serious person is denying them. ( I have heard religious people deny gravity but I suspect it was a spoof) If I denied something that was regarded as established fact, such as evolution, I would obviously be expected to provide evidence for my claim. But god is not an established fact; his positers have never produced any evidence.

You have presented no reasons or evidence why we should treat reality as totally only natural and without God.. My argument on P does not have to be changed by any evidence you presented. Why is there something rather than nothing? Atheism means there is no God involved in this question. Proof? This is not evidence of any kind, for atheism and attacking theists is not evidence for Atheism. Believe there is no God and we are atheists? Where is the evidence that warrants this belief.

I do not deny the existence of atoms, your absurb straw man. You love creating straw men, knocking them down and acting as if you proved something. Logical Fallacy again.

[johnross47]

Some of your comments above are such deranged enraged raving that I think Hooter is probably right. You are not really arguing. Do you get some sort religious high from working yourself up into such a fury of self righteousness. Does it make you feel all powerful to abuse the sinner and imagine you have proved them wrong. This clearly a waste of my time and encouraging you is probably not good for your health. Your therapist would probably be angry if they knew.
"I do not deny the existence of atoms, your absurb straw man" Where did I say that you denied the existence of atoms? Is English your second language? Anyhow......I have useful things to do.

[shadowhawk]

Some of your comments above are such deranged enraged raving that I think Hooter is probably right. You are not really arguing. Do you get some sort religious high from working yourself up into such a fury of self righteousness. Does it make you feel all powerful to abuse the sinner and imagine you have proved them wrong. This clearly a waste of my time and encouraging you is probably not good for your health. Your therapist would probably be angry if they knew.
"I do not deny the existence of atoms, your absurb straw man" Where did I say that you denied the existence of atoms? Is English your second language? Anyhow......I have useful things to do.

This is your argument for evidence for Atheism. Maybe you have a point. Typical.

[shadowhawk]

http://www.telegraph...-not-exist.html
Could it be? In an informal dialogue with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Dawkins surprised his audience by disclaiming the title of "atheist" -- as in World's Most Famous Atheist, as he's been universally known up till now -- in favor of "agnostic." OMG!!

http://www.evolution...ns_1056751.html

Maybe there are no Atheists!

[Googoltarian]

It's very simple shadowhawk. We like science, and by using scientific methods we conclude that there is no god.

Richard Dawkins once quoted somebody: "We think science is interesting, if you do not agree you can fuck off".

I do not say you should fuck off right now, maybe add something for delusions to your life-prolonging stack.

[hooter]

http://www.telegraph...-not-exist.html
Could it be? In an informal dialogue with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Dawkins surprised his audience by disclaiming the title of "atheist" -- as in World's Most Famous Atheist, as he's been universally known up till now -- in favor of "agnostic." OMG!!

http://www.evolution...ns_1056751.html

Maybe there are no Atheists!

Atheism is the answer to a different question. Your definition of atheist doesn't apply to anyone except 12 year olds who like to wear black mascara and eyeliner... The Archbishop also clearly misunderstood the etymology, so Dawkins had to explain it in detail. I've seen that entire debate and he didn't change his view whatsoever.

He fully explains his view in his books

I don't see this how this is news to anyone but people who haven't read his work. He's also an agnostic about fairies and ghosts. While admittedly being a brilliant scientist and speaker, he slid into exactly this kind of weasel wording which made him now look like he thinks god is a realistic possibility. He said it isn't. Did you close the video after he said the word agnostic? All the media is jumping on it because religious people are just that desperate for ad hominem 'proof'.

I don't know how he could commit such a simple semantic error. Now all the christian newspapers are trying to milk this for all its worth. If you actually read his work you'd know that he never changed his view. He just states he has no more reason to believe in God than in ghosts, unicorns, aliens or wizards. The probability of god is about equal to the probability that magic is real and Hogwarts exists.

I wish Christopher Hitchens were still around to put him in his place for being such a linguistic pansy. This was Darwin's way of avoiding religious confrontation, inventing the word 'agnostic' when it answers a completely different question.

Atheism answers the question, "do you believe in god?"
Agnosticism answers the question, "does god exist?"

You will not find anyone except 12 year old goths who will say "god doesn't exist and that is 100% for certain". No, it's only 99.99999999999999999% certain that god doesn't exist. It's more likely that aliens are probing random hillbillies or that people with psychic powers exist, but we think that's delusional! The evidence and probability is the same. The arguments are identical. The only difference is in the social perception, and I can successfully argue this with literature and the DSM categorization of mental illness.

They're fundamentally different concepts but essentially intertwined, but religious people are only capable of cheap shots and wordplay so I'm not surprised.

If you want to argue semantics, we can fully argue that religious belief meets all criteria of delusional disorder.

The following indicates a clinical delusion:

• The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.

Militant atheism is 'talking loudly', while militant religiosity is blowing people up, throwing acid in woman's faces, beating children with sticks, crusades, banning condom use, limiting stem cell research and more.

• That idea appears to exert an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.

Do I even have to explain this?

• Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.

God is mysterious. The arguments used constantly change and flux.

• The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.

I'm being attacked! By strawmen! Not interested.

• There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.

God looks out for me.

• An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.

Walk up to a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim and try to argue that god doesn't exist. Both Dawkins and Rushdie got thousands of instances of hate mail...

• The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural and religious background.

Oh, so if you're in the wrong country it makes a difference whether something is delusional or not? Does this mean Unicorns are real, but only in France?

• The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche..

God, god god, blah blah, god everything everything.

• The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.

God telling people to murder, rape virgins before executing them, beat children with sticks, etc.

• Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.

If you've ever seen how glazy eyed Jehovas witnesses are, you know what I mean.

My favorite line is this:

The DSM-IV, and psychologists, generally agree that personal beliefs should be evaluated with great respect to complexity of cultural and religious differences since some cultures have widely accepted beliefs that may be considered delusional in other cultures.





So if you're surrounded by Christians, you're not crazy. But if you're in an Islamic country, you're legally insane. Sanity based on local herd mentality. Religion is utterly ridiculous.

Edited by hooter, 01 March 2012 - 10:37 AM.

[johnross47]

Some of your comments above are such deranged enraged raving that I think Hooter is probably right. You are not really arguing. Do you get some sort religious high from working yourself up into such a fury of self righteousness. Does it make you feel all powerful to abuse the sinner and imagine you have proved them wrong. This clearly a waste of my time and encouraging you is probably not good for your health. Your therapist would probably be angry if they knew.
"I do not deny the existence of atoms, your absurb straw man" Where did I say that you denied the existence of atoms? Is English your second language? Anyhow......I have useful things to do.

This is your argument for evidence for Atheism. Maybe you have a point. Typical.

the problem is that you aren't addressing the argument....you are simply showering opponents with massive amounts of abuse. Your deranged reaction to criticism of your pseudo evidence is what leads us to question your state of mind and the value of talking to you. The flaming capitals everywhere are a strong indicator of either immaturity or disturbance. (or both) When people made perfectly valid comments about the original question, you followed up with reams of religiose drivel

[shadowhawk]

Hooter: Informal dialog. He fully explains his view in his books, which you didn't read.

I don't see this how this is news to anyone but people who haven't read his work...

How do you know if I read Dawkins books? Ask me. Baseless assumption, Logical Fallacy.. Please point out in any of his books where he rejects “Atheist,” for “Agnostic,” for us who missed it. I assume you read them and know.

It was news to the sources I cited. However the topic is about evidence for Atheism and a person who is known as an Atheist (Dawkins) is not sure. He chose the self descriptor “Agnostic,” over “Atheist”. Are you an “Atheist?”

As for the rest of your massive post, to many Fallacies and personal attacks to bother with.

In answer to the topic, where is the evidence for Atheism???

[shadowhawk]

Some of your comments above are such deranged enraged raving that I think Hooter is probably right. You are not really arguing. Do you get some sort religious high from working yourself up into such a fury of self righteousness. Does it make you feel all powerful to abuse the sinner and imagine you have proved them wrong. This clearly a waste of my time and encouraging you is probably not good for your health. Your therapist would probably be angry if they knew.
"I do not deny the existence of atoms, your absurb straw man" Where did I say that you denied the existence of atoms? Is English your second language? Anyhow......I have useful things to do.

This is your argument for evidence for Atheism. Maybe you have a point. Typical.

the problem is that you aren't addressing the argument....you are simply showering opponents with massive amounts of abuse. Your deranged reaction to criticism of your pseudo evidence is what leads us to question your state of mind and the value of talking to you. The flaming capitals everywhere are a strong indicator of either immaturity or disturbance. (or both) When people made perfectly valid comments about the original question, you followed up with reams of religiose drivel

Where have I abused anyone. Nonsense. I have given Atheists every opportunity to present evidence for Atheism by bringing up good Atheist arguments which I have heard and problems with them. I abused no one unlike you. Read Hooter and your posts if you want to see abuse. I have not talked about religion. Where is the evidence for Atheism?

1. Definition of Atheism?
http://www.longecity...post__p__502597

2. Atheism isn’t a belief so needs no evidence.?
http://www.longecity...post__p__502824

3. You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...post__p__503352

4. The Burden of Proof Is not on the Atheist because they don’t believe in anything?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504130

5. Ockham’s Razor?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504306

[hooter]

[quote name='shadowhawk' timestamp='1330630530' post='504531']
[quote] Hooter: Informal dialog. He fully explains his view in his books, which you didn't read.

I don't see this how this is news to anyone but people who haven't read his work...[/quote]

How do you know if I read Dawkins books? Ask me. Baseless assumption, Logical Fallacy.. Please point out in any of his books where he rejects “Atheist,” for “Agnostic,” for us who missed it. I assume you read them and know.

In answer to the topic, where is the evidence for Atheism???
[/quote]

Ladies and gentlemen,

Baseless assumption, logical fallacy, strawman argument ad hominem ad infinitum ergo visa vi concordia!

Let the symphony begin. With trumpets in discord the strings sawing at sanity, we view from above and let judgement fall.

[quote name='shadowhawk' timestamp='1329520464' post='501885']
The atheist says God is not the reason because there is no God. No God, not simply the lack of belief in God is the true answer.
[/quote]
[quote name='shadowhawk' timestamp='1329864549' post='502573']
This is not evidence. When you say "all evidence," what are you talking about? I would see if I could talk to your God but it is off topic,
[/quote]

[quote name='shadowhawk' timestamp='1329877312' post='502597']
All three steps you present are in error. Not a straw man. So the thread title is accurate and this objection for evidence is based on a false definition of Atheism which would fit dogs and cats if true. Where is the evidence?
[/quote]
[quote name='shadowhawk' timestamp='1329941976' post='502746']
Guess you are having a hard time reading the topic. Off toppic. Not evidence for Atheism. Check this out. At least, unlike you, he tries.not to change the subject.
[/quote]
[quote name='shadowhawk' timestamp='1329960849' post='502824']
The Claim Atheism Isn’t A Belief like Theism therefore needs no evidence, is a copout.
Does Atheism need evidence in order to keep from being dismissed?
[/quote]

[quote name='shadowhawk' timestamp='1330132113' post='503352']
The unfortunate saying by Atheists, that one can’t prove a negative should be dropped. Absurd.

However like parrots, we will hear again how they alone use reason and need no proof! There is no burden of proof on them we are assured as they are rude and crude to any theist. Prove you have no burden of proof.
[/quote]
[quote name='shadowhawk' timestamp='1330467626' post='504130']
What about Ockham’s Razor, the principle of parsimony associated with the medieval philosopher and monk, William of Ockham. Is Atheism the simplest answer and God is something made up like the Spaghetti Monster? The simplest answer is to be preferred?
[/quote]
[quote name='shadowhawk' timestamp='1330469248' post='504138']
Is this an argument or simply name calling by someone with nothing but one Logical Fallacy after another

Do you believe in fairies? If you are making them up, no I don’t believe it but if you have really seen them in your garden, I would need more information to evaluate what is going on. I am not the one seeing fairies so what evidence do you have? So my addressing your clam of fairies in your garden entitles you to abuse me? Interesting but off topic. I would be interested in finding some help for you.
[/quote]
[quote name='shadowhawk' timestamp='1330479972' post='504168']
[What profound arguments. Not one argument here that relates to anything I said. Empty logical Fallacies. Relate to one thing I said, otherwise ho hum
[/quote]

[quote name='shadowhawk' timestamp='1330544872' post='504296']
Oh good someone who volunteers to grade my posts...nope just like everything else no there, there. Where is the evidence? So far none. You have said absolutely nothing bit create straw men and Logical Fallacies. Now you are talking babu talk. Off topic.

Try again, but try to stay on topic and try to say something.
[/quote]

[quote name='shadowhawk' timestamp='1330547532' post='504306']
What about Ockham’s Razor, the principle of parsimony associated with the medieval philosopher and monk, William of Ockham? I mentioned this in my last post #4. His principle is often expressed as, “Do not multiply entities beyond necessity”? Can this help? The idea, presumably, is that if a conception of reality without any divine being contains the resources necessary to explain everything that needs explaining (a proposition Ockham would have vehemently denied!) then Ockham’s Razor licenses us to exclude all references to the divine in our explanatory accounts. Might this maneuver justify atheism without evidence?

No. The trouble is that Ockham’s Razor is of little use in disputes over whether some entity X exists. That is because it is typically an open question in such disputes whether everything that needs explaining can in fact be explained without X. Theists believe, or at least suspect, that there are features of reality which are inexplicable without appeal to a divine being: the existence of a contingent universe, the fine-tuning of physical constants, etc. Is there evidence for Atheism? Ockhams Razor gives us no help, even though Atheists love to quote the monk.
[/quote]

[quote name='shadowhawk' timestamp='1330554092' post='504336']
You have presented no reasons or evidence why we should treat reality as totally only natural and without God.. My argument on P does not have to be changed by any evidence you presented. Why is there something rather than nothing? Atheism means there is no God involved in this question. Proof? This is not evidence of any kind, for atheism and attacking theists is not evidence for Atheism. Believe there is no God and we are atheists? Where is the evidence that warrants this belief.

I do not deny the existence of atoms, your absurb straw man. You love creating straw men, knocking them down and acting as if you proved something. Logical Fallacy again.
[/quote]

The fractured mind is frantic among his pieces while truth sails on unyielding.

Edited by hooter, 01 March 2012 - 08:15 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Hooter: The fractured mind is frantic among his pieces while truth sails on unyielding.

And this out of context list proves what truth? Read my points in context below. Ad Honimem attacks. Not our topic. No evidence! Are you an Atheist and where is your Dawkins quote I asked for?

What I said in context.

1. Definition of Atheism?
http://www.longecity...post__p__502597

2. Atheism isn’t a belief so needs no evidence.?
http://www.longecity...post__p__502824

3. You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...post__p__503352

4. The Burden of Proof Is not on the Atheist because they don’t believe in anything?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504130

5. Ockham’s Razor?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504306

Edited by shadowhawk, 01 March 2012 - 09:24 PM.

[hooter]

Hooter: The fractured mind is frantic among his pieces while truth sails on unyielding.

And this out of contest list proves what truth? Read my points in context below. Ad Honimem attacks. Not our topic. No evidence! Are you an Atheist and where is your Dawkins quote I asked for?

Don't worry, it's not for you. Not interested. The quote is off topic.

Edited by hooter, 01 March 2012 - 08:54 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Hooter: The fractured mind is frantic among his pieces while truth sails on unyielding.

And this out of contest list proves what truth? Read my points in context below. Ad Honimem attacks. Not our topic. No evidence! Are you an Atheist and where is your Dawkins quote I asked for?

Don't worry, it's not for you. Not interested. The quote is off topic.

That is right. You never answered my questions? I don't think you have a Dawkins quote on Atheism because he doesn't have the evidence for atheism which is our topic. I just want to know if you are like him. .

Edited by shadowhawk, 01 March 2012 - 09:35 PM.