General

@fradddd: The point of the reply didn't call for it, which was my point in the first place when referring to discussions like the one in this thread.

@sezbeth you just avoided using any unnecessary fancy vocabulary, for the most part, thank you.

@fradddd: Why the angst?

I'm curious as to how one would go about discussing philosophy with only "simple" (however you wish to define this) vocabulary.

Reminds me of those times when I was going on about neurological differences in homosexuals, those with obesity, and other behavioral anomalies in past threads; at some point, someone criticized my supposed overuse of jargon. In reality, I wasn't using much, if any, at all. Really, if I simplified it anymore I would've been using terms like "brain juice".

It's just the nature of the discussion at hand. In any case, I'm sure you'll get over it.

I like to believe he is real, maybe not as some bearded man in the sky but maybe something else, some omnipotent being. I'm a Christian I'll go out and say it yea, I don't agree with EVERYTHING they say but imo the people who take ANY religion too seriously are the real lunatics. Even Athiests who are far too hell bent on that idea are just downright awful people.

In my opinion, religion is something to help keep people grounded and to not let people get too arrogant towards other people and beings. Religion most definitely is a source for self comfort and keeping your mind together when things get really tough. Is it true or is it all bologna? Really, who cares? There's just as much goodness and evil that come from Athiests and disbelievers as there is hardcore religion followers. As long as they don't go overboard on their beliefs or cause harm to other people then there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

You can't prove got doesn't exist, just as you can't prove that he does. That's what religion is all about: Faith.

If you guys are writing this much for Basil posts I hope your essays are ten times longer than everything you've said here.
I like how you pretend you "can't help" using "fancy vocabulary". Why are these types of people so prevalent (fancy enough for ya?) on Basil?

"They call me Mr. Knowitall
I will not compromise.
I will not be told what to do.
I shall not step aside.
They call me Mr. Knowitall
I have no time to waste.
My mouth it spews pure intellect.
And I've such elegant taste.
They call me Mr. Knowitall.
I sup the aged wine.
Oh I could tell such wondrous tales
if I should find the time.
I must be Mr. Knowitall
For ideas they come in bounds.
I am Mr. Knowitall
So spread the word around.
They call me Mr. Knowitall
I am so eloquent.
Perfection is my middle name
And whatever rhymes with eloquent."
-Primus

@wontpostmuch: Hm, I think you are mistaken here.

"No, atheism does not have the etymological roots that the prefix appears to suggest."

It absolutely does. Taken from Oxford: 'Atheist Late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'.' Etymologically speaking Atheism literally means "Without God(s)", it does not say anything about denying the existence of God(s). I am without a cat right now, does that mean I deny the existence of cats? You are inferring your own definition here.

The definition of the word Atheism, again from Oxford, is "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." You are mistaken because you are leaving the belief part out of the definition. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, key word being "belief." Anything else beyond that is your own subjective interpretation. I did see the denial definition in the Stanford interpretation, however as pandapoet was saying this isn't the position that most atheists would adhere to which is why I think the "lack of belief" definition is far more appropriate when describing the vast majority of atheists out there.

"Given that an atheist is defined in academia and most dictionaries as someone who denies the existence of God"

Most academic sources and most dictionaries do not say that. Most use the lack of belief definition.

Oh and you drink tequila? Tequila is the death of me, I was doing shots of Patron last night and I felt like death this morning. Jager is my go-to, I can drink it like water.

Some think God is a bearded white man, others think God is a multi-arm elephant, I think God is the sun. Are you saying the sun doesn't exist?

PS: note from George Carlin

@distantsky: Ugh. Burden of proof is a damn legal term used in courts. Even then, burden of proof is something that shifts from the defendant to the prosecutor. It holds no place in academic discussions. If you have a belief, be it that datura is a deliriant or that it posseses no deliriant properties, you have some burden of explaining your reasoning.

What I was pointing out is that if we had never encountered a plant that had deliriant properties, it could be deemed an extraordinary claim. Thus anecdotal evidence of its effects on the mind would not be extraordinary evidence and we would have no reason to believe any claim that it has any effects on the mind. Thus, we would have no compelling reason to even scientifically investigate the chemical effects of that plant. See what I mean? At some point you have to take non-extraordinary evidence, such as someone's personal experience with a plant like datura to even figure out what you should scientifically investigate.

Religion can be studied. There's a whole field called Theology. Sure it can't be quantified but neither can logic or the philosophy of science. Saying that something can't be quantified does not even come close to meaning it can't be studied.

I used to consider myself atheist. It wasn't even because I rejected the belief of the masses. People would make me angry when they spoke of Jesus & show me a pantalets depict Jesus as a long haired blonde man. I took it on myself to learn who Jesus is.

Most of the tales told through the bible are based off of other historians. Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist. At least not the one we learned about in Sunday school. When the Israelites were exiled to the desert. That is fact, fact that they came out the desert alive. It can't disputed.

You know how people fall into comas. I don't know why it happens. Science doesn't know why it happens. All science knows is that your body is in a terrible state. What is even more astonishing is when people wake from a coma. Nothing can explain it. I mean ya it is due to brain activity but that's all we know.

Like I said I used to be an atheist. I used to sit in church & wonder why am I here? That question lead to the real question of; WHY am I here? Looking up at my pastor who spoke with such confidence. Confidence in the word of God. These words that lead him all over Asia. Those same words that lead him to learn 7 different languages.

I'm not saying I associate myself with a certain religious demographic. Sometimes people just listen to little. Open up more than just your mouth, so focused on what you have to say that the meaning behind your words are lost. As kids we always believed. That belief begins to corrupt & disbelief is what we are left with. Just take a deep breathe & eat that cookie, because it's good for you, & because it makes you feel good.

*you people talk way to much*

@wontpostmuch: Heck yeahhh.

Because unlike religion, biochemistry can be studied and quantified (NMR, IR, ect to detect specific properties/characteristics of the unknown extract) and if I claim that Datura gives hallucinogenic trips, I BETTER be able to back it up with data.

Even if the presenter is not a scientist, the effects of Datura can be given to someone else since it would have similar effects, granted the other testee doesn't have a drastically different neurophysiology.

So yes, the burden of proof lies with the person presenting the claim, and that falls true even in your little anecdote

@wontpostmuch: u don't seem to understand what the burden of proof means. if they disagree that a god exists, it means they have not been convinced that a god exists after reading believers' arguments. burden of proof means that the person making a claim has to provide proof for it. disagreeing with believers claims (i.e. not believing them) is NOT A CLAIM THAT NO GODS EXIST. do u understand this??

did u read what i said, that the "lack of belief" definition of atheism includes people who claim that no gods exist? they can be NOTHING ELSE if the "lack of belief" were the definition of atheism. to say "atheism is a lack of belief and it is the claim that no gods exist" is logical nonsense. it is either the lack of belief or the claim that no gods exist. if it is the former, the latter would be subset of atheism because the people who claim that no gods exist can be nothing else other than someone who lacks the belief in any gods. the definition would still be a "lack of belief" in this case.

even the stanford respondent stated that it is re-evaluating how we should define atheism. u missed the part where they said "All that said, we are continuing to examine the situation regarding the definitions as presented in this entry.", and again i suggest u email them urself since that post was a few years back. u agree that many philosophers argue the definition of atheism yet u continue to label the "lack of belief" definition as weird, as if that somehow justifies ur position.

multiple modern definitions of atheism is NOT a problem if both parties agree to a definition before a debate like u said. but it IS a problem if u ask someone to "justify the claim that no gods exist" if they are using the "lack of belief" definition of atheism. do u see? when asking someone, u should consult with them on their definition of atheism before asking them to justify the claim that no gods exist.
u have missed addressing this point a few times already. there are 2 relevant questions:
question a: can you justify why you reject believers' claims?
question b: can you justify your claim that no gods exist?
again, do u understand the difference between these 2 questions? do u know how these questions reflect back on the definitions of atheism? if so, do u agree that u urself have asked BOTH of these questions and complain that u don't get an adequate answer, especially for question b?

if i properly read what i said, i did not say that "peer review" is exclusive to science, i said that it is a meaningless phrase in this context. ur welcome to call it "peer review" in philosophy. i can go on about what's wrong with u using the term here, but too much effort.

for the richard dawkins comment, firstly u ignored the fact that someone could become knowledgeable of philosophy without having earned a degree in philosophy. if someone has studied biology and read the origin of species without having majored in biology, they can get a good scientific understanding from it. secondly, did u consider that dawkins may have read aquinas's arguments, but simply disagree with them, instead of being ignorant of them, and stating that the end conclusion isn't necessarily what we call god as a summary of his position? fyi, i am beginning to read texts on this stuff (http://www.academia.edu/3713502/Aquinas_vs_Dawkins_on_the_Existence_of_GOd, http://recordedbooks.com/courses_pdf/UT148.pdf, http://www.basilica.org/pages/ebooks/St.%20Thomas%20Aquinas-Summa%20Theologica.pdf), but i have not yet come across a well structured argument for each conclusion. if u mock dawkins for being ignorant, maybe u should summarize why and cite works and refutations to his rebuttals. thirdly, many atheists say "well who created god?" not because they don't understand the concept of the first cause, but because it is a light mockery in response to the specific attributes given to 'God' (e.g. a concept of sin, Satan, etc.) by believers. perhaps instead of them being ignorant, ur simply not understanding their position?

and again, i have no problem with u asking atheists to justify why they reject believers' claims that a god exists. u used ur rock analogy to point out why the definition of "a lack of belief" fails, not why atheists should justify their position. ur steering off course. i have also already explained that using the "lack of belief" definition for atheism isn't a cop out or a deflection from justification. i said that it is perfectly fine to ask atheists to justify why they lack the belief in any gods (i.e. they reject believers' claims). i said it is NOT fine to ask them to justify the claim that no gods exist, because atheism by its broad definition DOES NOT HOLD THAT CLAIM. Most people who call themselves atheists DO NOT MAKE THAT CLAIM. u have asked the former AND the latter from ur earlier posts. do u get the difference dude...?

i think this because internet. most atheists do not claim that no gods exist. people who don't think it's probable that god exists DO NOT posit a position that no gods exist. we don't call someone an "agnostic evolutionist" because it's not a controversial issue. if u call someone an agnostic evolutionist, what relevance does that have? sure, an atheist can claim "god probably doesn't exist", but that's not entailed in the broad definition of atheism. atheism broadly speaking is the rejection of the theistic claim.

for those online dictionaries, i have some as well.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheist
Atheist: "A PERSON who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
Atheist: "a disbelief in the existence of deity" or "the doctrine that there is no deity" (both definitions are included)
what's ur point? when talking to atheists, most people use the "lack of belief in any gods" definition.

@distantsky: See, this is a bit of a problematic proposition. Namely because it is very unclear how we would determine what makes a claim extraordinary or what kind of evidence would count as extraordinary to begin with.

Consider the following scenarios: the government announces a lottery with astronomically low chances for anyone to win. Let's say one in a trillion chances for there to be a winner. Let's say your friend Joe claims he won the lottery. This seems like an extraordinary claim given the astronomically low probability of the occurrence, yet the evidence to prove it would just be a ticket with the winning numbers on it. This seems like a rather ordinary piece of evidence for an extraordinary claim. Of course, whether you accept that either of those things is extraordinary or ordinary seems rather subjective and without much basis on anything but someone's perspective.

The other scenario involves claims of religious revelation and the like. Is claiming to have come to contact with a divine entity or felt any form of spirituality really such an extraordinary claim? After all, religion has existed for a long time in human history and given that the world consists of millions of religious people, most who claim to have some personal encounter with their religious belief, can this sort of thing really be called extraordinary in any sense of the word? Certainly proving that you actually had this experience is almost impossible. Just like it would be impossible to prove that you felt really happy the first time you talked to your crush or really sad when a relative died. These sort of personal experiences can appear extraordinary but it seems silly to tell someone to provide extraordinary proof about personal experiences.

Let's expand on this train of thought. Consider the case of a schizophrenic who says that they hear voices, experience delusions of grandeur and claims they can't control their thoughts. If this was told to someone who had no knowledge of mental illness, it certainly would seem that the schizophrenic is makignan extraordinary claim about their mental state, but to psychiatrists and researchers of mental illness, this person's case would be far from extraordinary. This is what makes this standard so questionable. It's a great rule of thumb but it breaks down the more you analyze it, as what constitutes the extraordinary is dependent on whomever is passing a judgment of what qualifies as extraordinary.

One last example. There is a plant known as Datura that causes intense hallucinations. Is it fair to say that if you have not experienced this plant's mind altering effects first hand, no amount of anecdotal evidence could be extraordinary enough to convince you that chemicals can affect your brain and perceptions so much? After all, if you do not consume the deliriant yourself, the basis for this belief would be little more than stories about this drug's power. But is that extraordinary? If not, then why would anyone even bother to research such claims? In a funny way, such a notion could even impediment research as we would find it hard to justify any atypical claim without some so called extraordinary reason to think that it should be investigated at all.

As a Christian, I say

with extraordinary claims, one must bring extraordinary evidence

Saying there is an almighty God is a pretty extraordinary claim. But we can't prove it, and that's final.

@benchpresser: Look to my response to Pandapoet. No, atheism does not have the etymological roots that the prefix appears to suggest. Check out the link cataloguing the etymology and history of words. You'll find that atheism has been used to mean people who deny the existence of Gods.

Furthermore, come to think of it, defining atheism as the rejection of theism makes no sense. If this were the case, words like agnosticism and deism lose meaning as they both reject aspects of theism. This is way too broad of a definition and I'm sure agnostics want to have different beliefs from atheists even if they both reject theistic claims.

Given that an atheist is defined in academia and most dictionaries as someone who denies the existence of God, it fits your conception of an individual holding that stance, which is what I said.

Lastly, atheism as an ideology or thought process certainly involves the idea that a God does not exist. Denying that atheism makes a claim is like saying theism as an ideology does not make a claim or that isolationism is not an ideology that makes a claim about national policy. It makes of no sense to speak of idealogies as being devoid of the idea they are named after.

Oh and thanks. I did not end up getting anywhere near drunk. My girlfriend's refrigerator stopped making ice, which put a dent into the cocktail I wanted to make for the evening, so I settled on sipping on a full glass of rum for the evening. Still want to try my cocktail, but ice is essential. Hopefully after I get my paycheck this weekend I will be able to visit my favorite local bar. They have this new fancy Tequila I've been dying to try!

@wontpostmuch: I checked out the article, definitely interesting how it uses String Theory to demonstrate scientific theories that are at the forefront which haven't made any testable predictions. I can see how in the same way certain ontological arguments try to do the same.

Anyways I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said, not gonna keep arguing for the sake of arguing lol. Cheers man, hope you didn't get too drunk last night. It's good to see threads like this on Basil again.

@wontpostmuch: Okay I feel compelled to get involved again because I read something I disagree with.

"Saying that atheists don't make claims is one of the most preposterous misconceptions of all time."

They absolutely do not though. Individuals make claims, Atheism in and of itself does not make a single claim. It is simply the rejection of the claim of theism, hence a-theism. If you look at the root meaning of the word it is quite literally not-theism. What claim does atheism make..?

@pandapoet: thallforms said that people who disagree with OP (presumably those who disagree that God does exist) have no burden of proof and shouldn't have to prove how they reached their beliefs. That is what I was criticizing.

And no, I don't get how anyone can be this resistant to such a simple definition of atheism, especially since it has historical backing. There is such a thing as narrow definitions of atheism! Why is this such a hard concept to grasp for you?

Along the spectrum of beliefs, there are those that say that they are convinced gods do not exist, those who are reasonably convinced gods do not exist, etc. And in this way the definition of atheism can be narrowed. Given how vague and ambiguous theist positions can be, it should not be controversial at all to note that what can be classified as atheism can be defined in a broad sense, encompassing a number of positions, or a stronger sense. Jesus man, please think about what you say before making dumb statements like narrow definitions of atheism not existing.

Now back to issue of how we should define atheism. As it turns out, the writer for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has been asked why he did not define atheism as a lack of belief in gods (see? I was right when I pointed out the SEP's definition did not align with yours), they responded as follows: "While the
term "atheism" is used in a variety of ways in general discourse, our entry is on its meaning in the philosophical literature.Traditionally speaking, the definition in our entry--that 'atheism'
means the denial of the existence of God--is correct in the philosophical literature." You can read more about their response and the original email here:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-9794.html

The SEP is not alone with this definition. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, another respected and peer reviewed source writes "Atheism is the view that there is no God... It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/#H1

Remember how I dismissed you defining the word simply on its prefix? As I said, the etymology and history of use of a word goes beyond just prefixes. Looking at the etymology and history of the word atheism, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Atheist At this point it becomes clear that atheism has been used to describe positive atheism, that is, the view that god does not exist AND NOT the weird definition you mostly find just online.

It is true, I now found out, that there have been a couple of authors who have argued for a broader definition of atheism in academia, but as the article in the IEP notes, along with a response from the editor of the SEP linked earlier, this has been a controversial redefining of the term that has met resistance from academic atheists and agnostics alike. It should be noted here too that even if we accept Flew's arguments, he recognizes a difference between positive atheism and his negative atheist definition, meaning that your claim that there is only your definition of atheism and speaking of narrower definitions of atheism does not make sense is absolute patent nonsense.

Now, I'm actually surprised that not realizing and comprehending that in academia, any published article in a journal is peer reviewed and that the process of peer review is not exclusive to science, it seems like you did provide peer reviewed articles, at least frlm the cursory look I gave to your articles. I will take a look at them when I have the time, but I suggest you have a better understanding of what peer review is so that you don't make silly statements as saying that peer review does not mean anything and can only be understood in a scientific context. That just betrays your ignorance and a less charitable person wouldn't have even bothered to respond given the egregiousness and absurdity of that statement.

At any rate, two last things of note. I criticize Dawkins and others as being ignorant of philosophy as they have not taken any formal courses in the matter, reviewed their stances on philosophical matters woth noted philosophers or engaged in any real academic research into philosophy. Just as it would be preposterous for someone to read The Origin of Species and declare themselves a legitimate biologist without even discussing his ideas with any recognized biologist, so too is it to see Dawkins as a philosopher when he has clearly only misread philosophical texts. How do I know this? In his criticism of Aquina's five arguments for the existence of God, he gives the common (ignorant) criticism that even if the arguments do succeed, there is no reason to call what they prove God. Had he actually bothered to keep on reading Aquina's works, he would have realized that he actually spends great time and lengths to explain how we can adequately call the being he attempts to prove God. So yeah, Dawkins either failed to address the rest of Aquina's reasoning and attacked it nonetheless or he didn't even bother to read everything he was objecting to and failed to realize Aquinas anticipated his objection and thus, refutations of his argument have existed for centuries now in academia. And I think it's a fair criticism to leverage to online atheists when they often respond to the First Cause argument in such silly ways such as "well then, who created God?" blisfully unaware that the First Cause argument is meant to end such infinite regressions and that the concept of God, philosophically speaking, is self-necessitating and not contingent upon anything else. In short, a lot of people haven't even bothered to understand theistic arguments or such a dumb objection wouldn't be so popular.

If you notice, all the links you provided, even if they do define atheism as a lack of belief in gods, are lengthy in explaining the atheist position and explaining reasons for it. This harkens back to what I was originally saying. No matter what position you take, you should be able to provide reasoning for it. So no, even if we were to accept this weird definition of atheism, such a person would not be exempt from justifying and explaining their decision (or as the internet crassly puts it, have some burden of proof for their position). That was the point of the rock analogy. Clearly there is more at play, an act of reasoning and belief systems at play even if atheism can be called a lakc of belief in gods that require justification. It's this act of reasoning that makes any person responsible for explaining their beliefs (or lack thereof, I suppose). Using your definition of atheism as a way to deflect criticisms of having to provide reasoning from your position is insane as it implies that your beliefs or lack of beliefs are no more founded or reasoned than the way a rock lacks any beliefs at all.

Lastly, the very fact that you think most atheists don't claim that God doesn't exist is very strange. Why do you think this? Even if we accept the notion of so-called agnostic atheists, who claim they can't be sure but they don't think that it's probable that God exists posit a position that God does not exist. How do I arrive at this conclusion? Well, we don't have to have infallible knowledge of things to make a claim. Just because we can't be sure for certain that evolution is real, we do not call our position on evolution as "agnostic-evolutionist." This stance taken by online atheists shows a misunderstanding of epistemology and probabilities. In saying that you think it's very likely or possible that God does not exist, for most intents and purposes you are saying that you do not believe god exists. Again, this knowledge does not have to be infallible and unqueationable, but so long as you think it's the reasonable position to heavily call into question the existence of God, you are, for all practical purposes, making a positive atheist claim.

One last thing, if you check the overwhelming majority of dictionaries, they define atheism as the positive claim that God does not exist: http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/atheism

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/12449?redirectedFrom=atheism#eid

I hope by now I have demonstrated that in academia and common usage (according to most dictionaries) atheist refers to someone who denies the existence of god(s), and the word's history and etymology back this up.

@wontpostmuch: there is no "narrow definition of atheism". the only reason it seems "narrow" to u is because people who claim that there are no gods happen to be atheists - they can be nothing else if we define atheism as the lack of belief in any gods. i looked on the first page dude. who said "someone making the claim that god does not exist does not have to provide proof for their claim"? not thallforms, he didn't mention anything about anyone making a claim.

see, there is still one thing that u don't seem to understand. i agree that it is reasonable to ask an atheist to justify their rejection of believers' claims, i DO NOT agree that it is reasonable to ask an atheist to justify the claim that no gods exist. do u understand the difference? u were asking an atheist to do BOTH. again, the former question is ok. asking the latter is shifting the burden of proof and leads to a strawman fallacy because most people ur debating with define atheism as a lack of belief in gods, not specifically a claim that no gods exist!! when people say the burden of proof is on the believer, it is a response SPECIFICALLY to the believer asking them to justify that no gods exist, when they don't make that claim. in other words, "the burden of proof is on u" means "uggghhh dude i didn't claim that no gods exist, u claimed that a god exists so u have to prove that claim". burden of proof literally means that it is up to the person making a claim to provide proof for it. the definition of atheism as "a lack of belief in any gods" (almost all atheists use this definition) doesn't include any claims whatsoever. remind me how this is a cheap cop-out.

yes, an atheist's outlook on the concept of a god is more complex than a rock, but the complexity of their viewpoint doesn't define what atheism is - it reinforces their position as atheists. the lack of belief in any gods is a perfectly adequate definition, it is because they thought it through whatever they thought through that they lack the belief in gods. ur attacking the "lack of belief" part, but your analogy doesn't even work because atheism can be defined to apply to only humans. if atheism was redefined to "someone who lacks the belief in any gods", your analogy to undermine the "lack of belief" part fails.

tbh, u know that many academics don't even agree to a universal definition of atheism right? no idea where u got that most philosophers don't use a lack of belief in any gods as the definition for atheism, please cite this with a peer reviewed journal. the "lack of belief" definition isn't popular because it deflects criticism, it's popular because that's what most people who call themselves atheists identify themselves as. they don't use this definition to avoid justifying the claim that no gods exist, they never made that claim.

u also criticize atheists like richard dawkins for "knowing nothing of the philosophy they criticize", but what counts as someone who knows these philosophical ideas? someone with a degree in philosophy? someone who may not have a degree in philosophy but studied various religious texts? what if the latter guy knows more about a religion's text and history than the former guy? u quickly bash atheists like dawkins but u urself don't know how much time these atheists have spent on reading religious material, seems like an ignorant thing to say.

idk what sort of "peer reviewed" (which is a meaningless phrase since it isn't like there is an objective, quantitative measure of what we're talking about, peer reviewed may be more appropriate when talking about scientific experiments and knowledge) journals u want, but does this count?
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/13458/****eur%20The%20Definition%20of%20Atheism%202009.pdf?sequence=1
Atheism: "The most fruitful definition of atheism is a negative one: an atheist does not believe in the god that theism favors"
(replace **** with see-el-eye-tee (letter pronunciation))
1 down, 4 to go...
how about these books?
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199644650.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199644650-e-043
Atheism: "An absence of belief in the existence of a God or gods"
http://satdude.com/4don/ebooks/Crichton,%20Michael/ebooks/George%20Smith%20-%20Atheism%20-%20The%20Case%20Against%20God.pdf
Atheism: "One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being"
these definitions all have one thing in common: they literally mean the same thing as a lack of belief in gods
i guess i need to find 2 more references for u huh?

@pandapoet: Couple of points for you. The reason why I began with a more narrow and explicit definition of atheism is because of how the original question of this thread was asked. OP asks to prove that God doesn't exist to which a commenter on the first page replied that someone making the claim that god does not exist does not have to provide proof for their claim, which is utter nonsense. Then I expanded my argument to include almost any position along the spectrum of the theism vs atheism debate. If you agree that you should be able to justify your position then we are in complete agreement over the most relevant point, which is that appealing to burden of proof as a way to not explain your position is a cheap cop-out.

The point of the rock example is to show how inadequate the definition of atheism as mere lack of belief in God actually is. It's meant to highlight how lack of belief is a particularly neutral and intellectually devoid position, so much so that it can even be applied to inanimate objects. It is clear the typical atheist has a more sophisticated outlook on the topic and thus their view is much more complex than mere lack of beliefs. In fact, take a look at the literature and you'll find that aside from people who learned about atheism online and other informal sources, atheism is not defined as a lack of belief by most academics who defend atheist positions. In fact, the very reason why this definition has become so popular is actually to deflect criticisms. It's no surprise that this definition is mostly used by so-called new atheists who follow non-philosophers like Dawkins and Harris and have a warped view of science to not justify their position. You are right that many times a theist may misconstrue the actual atheist position or think about it in too narrow a sense. That's a fair point. But what you cannot deny is that playing who has burden of proof is a fools game. In any legitimate setting of academia, no matter what position you hold you will be asked to be able to defend it. And that's what matters. Simply correct the theist on what your views really are so they don't attack a strawman of your views and then explain your reasoning rather than use burden of proof as a way to not defend your reasoning. That is lazy.

To drive my point home, please find me 5 peer reviewed journals that cite atheism as a mere lack of belief in God. You'll find there aren't many, if any at all, for the reasons I delineated above. Oh and try to read whatever you find. It's a good habit to get into!

If ghost exist god no doubt exist. NOTHING anyone says can deny the existences of ghost. I know for a fact NONE of you will go to a 100% haunted place asking for acceptance from a ghost. I do however know billions of people ask for the smallest sign that they are accepted by God.

@wontpostmuch: I completely understand that frustration, I've dealt with it one to many times! You speak like a true master. Thanks for the good wishes!

@wontpostmuch: a couple of points mate

to answer ur question let me rephrase it a little because "they should be able to" i think is poor wording.
is it reasonable to ask an atheist for a justification on why they reject believers' claims? - yes absolutely, i said that already.
however, u wanted atheists to answer another question, u wanted atheists to be able to justify the claim that no gods exist from a few pages back and then complain that atheists don't answer that question (which i got from u a few pages back).

atheists "play the game of burden of proof" because the mismatch of the definition of atheism between two or more people reflect a fundamental misunderstanding. the only reason atheists play the burden of proof is because too many believers ask them the question "can you justify your claim that no gods exist?". the question asked almost all the time isn't "can you justify why you reject our claim?", it's "can you justify your claim that no gods exist?". there is a striking difference. to most of them, it is a strawman fallacy because they have made no such claim (and, to nearly all of them who call themselves atheists, the definition of atheism is someone who lacks/rejects the belief in any gods).

when i mean semantics i mean u are interpreting a definition to mean one thing. yes, it is important that all parties understand the definition in this context, which is why i asked u to contact the author of that page to clarify. but some people don't agree that denial of god's existence means to make the claim that no gods exist.

for the rock thing, if the lack of difference in discerning someone from an inanimate object isn't a bad thing, what's the point in bringing it up? seems kind of pointless to point out that the definition of atheism includes rocks unless u are trying to highlight something more important. if a rock by definition is an atheist, why would it matter? although a strange way to view it, it wouldn't invalidate the definition.

agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive, the 2 definitions aren't related at all. one can be an atheist and at the same time agnosticism when it comes to god.
an atheist is someone who lacks/rejects the belief in any gods (the definition that most atheists use).
an agnostic is someone who claims that it is impossible to know something
an atheist that is agnostic when it comes to god would lack the belief in any gods and would also hold the claim that it is impossible to know for sure whether a god exists - such people are called "agnostic atheists" for short, which coincidentally most non-believers are.

@pandapoet: I really don't know how to continue this discussion without going around in circles.

Here, let me ask you this: do you think someone should be able to defend why they reject a claim, yes or no?

If yes, then congratulations you finally understood what I've been saying this whole time.

If not, then you are saying that you believe that someone saying "I reject that statement as false" without defending his decision is valid and requires no further elaboration.

Funnily enough, people who argue a lot about who has burden of proof end up missing the point. It doesn't really matter who has the burden of proof, what matters is if someone asks you why you hold the beliefs that you do and reject those that you do not hold, you should be able to defend your position. And that's why I get annoyed at atheists that play the game of burden of proof. You can't just reach a position and not explain how you got there when challenged. Saying "I don't think that is right" is never a good enough response. There is a reason why academia never just says "I disagree with author making claim X" and ends there.

Lastly, two things worthy of pointing out. Of course this is a matter of semantics. When people say that something is a matter of semantics dismissively, it is because the precise definition is trivial. If the definition we are using encompasses a very strong claim or a variety of related claims with varying degrees of strength and philosophical footing, then getting the semantics right absolutely matters. Hate to break it to you but you can't just dismiss things because you heard someone say it once in a dismissive manner. Second, trying to narrow down the definition to "people who lack belief in deities" instead of just general lack of belief in deities does not absolve you from the brunt of my argument. What I was pointing out is that if this lack of belief definition were true, the position taken by people would be virtually indistinguishable from the lack of beliefs of a rock, which is clearly not what is going on when people speak of atheism. Again, this is not a bad thing. It means that atheists have valid, logical and reasonable reasons for disagreeing with theists. So much so that they too make claims about the world and what we currently know, which is completely different from not holding any beliefs about the matter at all. What I'm saying is that if your position is virtually indistinguishable from the lack of beliefs of any inanimate objects, it probably isn't a good position to find yourself in.

One last thing, asking someone if they think we can even know anything about deities is absolutely relevant to determining where on the spectrum of atheism they fall into, or differentiating atheists from agnostics. It's a very good and legitimate question to ask.

@Denial: Thanks for that. Sometimes I think I'm failing to properly communicate given how people gloss over what I say or completely misinterpet it, so it's nice to hear things like this. Keep at it! Practice and reading are the best way to master any language. Good luck!

@wontpostmuch: uhhh dude denial means to not accept (reject) something. ur playing a game of semantics. it is equivalent to no belief in any gods (a lack of belief in gods). i suggest u contact the authors of that page to clarify what it means. u cannot apply both definitions at the same time. ur analogy to a rock being an atheist is logically inept, firstly it doesn't negate the "no belief/lack of belief" as the definition of atheism, secondly it refers to PEOPLE who lack belief in any gods because the idea of a god is a human construct - if we redefined atheism as "PEOPLE who lack the belief in any gods", would that make u happy? is a rock a doctor? of course it isn't, no sh*t, but just because there isn't a word for someone or something who/that isn't a doctor, doesn't make the concept any less valid.

2 definitions cannot be applied at the same time, and, from what i have seen u ask, u are using them interchangeably. u are asking atheists to justify the claim that NO GODS EXIST and wonder why u dont get a response. the vast majority of people who call themselves atheist use the former definition not the latter. to ask them why they reject believers' claims is reasonable, to ask them to justify the claim that no gods exist isn't reasonable because the majority of these people don't claim that no gods exist. next time before u ask an atheist anything, u should check with them what definition they use because clearly there is some confusion on ur part. it is controversial because the vast majority of atheists use the former definition but to apply the latter definition allows for a shift of the burden of proof on the atheists, and then u can say something like "well u need to justify your claim that no gods exist" to try to weaken their position when their position isn't even that no gods exist.

for ur questions to ask the guy that says they aren't convinced of believers' claims:
Why is he unconvinced? - uhh dude how is the answer to this question in any way related to what atheism is
Does he think it's possible to even have any knowledge of deities? - not related to what atheism is
Does he even think the concept of God is meaningful? - not sure what u mean by 'meaningful' but again the answer to this question most likely has nothing to do with atheism

i already said that asking atheists to justify why they reject believers' claims is reasonable dude. however asking them to justify the claim that no gods exist (in which you have done) is not reasonable when most of those atheists don't make that claim.

note: sry im trying to find out which paragraph breaks the rules atm, i have more to add

@wontpostmuch: All arguments aside, your English and use of grammar and words are the bees knees. I'd love to be able to write like you, which is one reason I'd like to professionally upgrade my English in the future. Very good read, thanks for the inspiration.

@pandapoet: Did you even bother to read the second part of that definition? Here, I will isolate it: the denial of the existence of God. See? Negation in that sentence is clearly meant in a stronger sense than the one you take it to be since it is immediately followed up by an explicit denial of the existence of god. And like I pointed out before, atheism isn't mere lack of belief in gods. That would mean a human's decision to reject theist arguments is indistinguishable from the lack of theistic beliefs a rock has. Clearly there is more going on than just a mere "lack" of beliefs. And no, the etymology of atheism is much more complex and you cannot appeal to a mere prefix as the definitive definition or meaning of a word.

And what the hell do you mean that there can't be two definitions that are equally valid and recognized? In certain discussions, such as whether we have free will, there are a myriad definitions that are valid when talking about free will. That's why authors will specify which definition they will use. Atheism is a word that can represent any number of related position or it can also be used in a more narrow sense. Either use is fine so long as you clarify which you mean.

I'm not sure what I would call a person such as the one yoy described. Why is he unconvinced? Does he think it's possible to even have any knowledge of deities? Does he even think the concept of God is meaningful? He would have to answer those questions before I could say whether he is an atheist or not, but I hope evem you can see that in answering those questions a person will be stating beliefs and making claims (ie: yes I think knowledge of god could be possible OR the very concept of god makes it impossible for our intellects to investigate this matter).

Also look at the title of this thread for God's sake! "Prove that God does not exist." That is what started this discussion and when someone answered that someone saying that god doesn't exist doesn't have burden of proof I pointed out that he does indeed. Not sure why this is so controversial to people.

And btw saying that you don't think believers have concincing arguments requires some justification for saying that. You wouldn't just let them say "I don't think physicists have convincing arguments for why gravity exists" and let them off the hook. Jesus man. It's far from a controversial view anywhere except the internet.

@wontpostmuch: pretty sure the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy follows the former definition - a negation of something is without or lack of that something..., that is also where the a- prefix comes from. u cant have 2 definitions dude... it makes no logical sense in contexts like these. also, what would you call a guy who says "idk whether a god exists but so far i'm not convinced by believers' arguments that a god does indeed exist" - is he an atheist? asking someone to justify why they reject someone else's argument is perfectly reasonable. but ur main confusion is in the difference between asking someone to justify why they reject the belief in gods (why they reject other people's arguments for a god) and asking them to justify a claim that no gods exist.

a claim in this context obviously means to propose that something is (likely) true or not true... saying "i do not think believers have any logically sound reasons for believing in god" isn't a claim in this case, let alone a claim about god's existence.

@pandapoet: Atheism means both dude. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, atheism can be defined as "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism." Depends on how narrowly you want to define it but both are pretty commonly held to be adequate definitions of Atheism. Regardless and what I have been trying to explain is that even if you reject the belief that any gods exist, on any grounds, then the act of rejecting is what needs to be explained. WHY do you reject the beliefs in gods? It's a valid question to ask of someone. Idk why people have such a hard time grasping this simple concept.

And dude, no, almost everyone makes a claim about the existence of God, whether they are aware of it or not. Just the act of saying you aren't convinced by arguments from believers entails that you think their arguments are flawed somehow. That in itself is a claim. "I don't think God explains anything meaningful about our world" is a claim. "I do not think believers have any logically sound reasons for believing in god" is a claim. Saying that atheists don't make claims is one of the most preposterous misconceptions of all time.

@wontpostmuch: there is a difference between rejecting the belief that any gods exist (i.e. not accepting believers claims) and claiming that no gods exist. atheism means the former.

well yeah when people say they lack the belief in any gods, they usually point out why they aren't convinced by the arguments from believers, but they dont try to justify any claims because most of them dont make any claims...

in a 10th dimensional plane, where all possibilities (timelines) of all universes exist, omnipresence is a feature since this dimensional plane would be timeless (meaning any 10th dimensional being would be eternal/immortal)basically this being would be the omnipresent entity we figuratively describe as "god"

@pandapoet: I'm not sure why you find the definition of atheism to be so egregious. Atheists seem to posit that, at the very least, they reject belief in deities (what does that leave you with, then? Seems pretty straightforward that if you reject that belief you do not think belief in deities is justified) or, in the more extreme forms of atheism, that no deities do exist. Does it make sense to say of an Atheist that believes in the existence of a God? No? Then why is my definition wrong or bad?

Of course it counts. That's what I've been saying. But if you want to say that someone's evidence or justification is unconvincing, you need to explain why you think that. It's not that controversial of a thing to say, honestly. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you make a claim, even if it's "I find your evidence to not lead to the conclusion you got" you have to explain why you think so. Criticizing something doesn't immediately grant you immunity from explaining your position.

@Xreniya: I really like Descartes, lol and yea you were quite the jerk! I'll get back to you tomorrow. And to be fair, my sentences have comma splices since up until now they were all written on my phone. Idk why I couldn't use the browser in my desktop before.

i am an english major and the alarming frequency with which comma splices appear in your posts invalidates both your arguments

your posts also lack suspense and character development

check
mate

@benchpresser in his defense i was being kind of a jerk to descartes

@wontpostmuch: "Moving on to your definitions of atheism...there certainly are atheists that claim that God does not exist. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to think of an atheist that doesn't think that since it seems to go contrary to the very definition of atheism."

ugghhhh dude and ur saying "...they know little of the philosophy they criticize", this seems a bit ironic

also for this statement
"...so the person rejecting a theistic premise has some explaining to do."

does lack of convincing evidence or justification from the believers count?

@benchpresser: I mean, if you ever read Aquinas you would know how he goes about proving that his five arguments for the existence of a superior being naturally leads to the conclusion that it must be God. According to Descartes, this being outside the scope ofnthe material world is the only thing that made it certain that we can have knowledge at all and used this argument to defend the sciences. Given that he was talking about an infinite, benevolent, perfect and all powerful being, I'm not really sure where he would be wrong in calling such a being God. Of course, the religious connotations have to do with historical reasons as well as logical ones but nonetheless, I never found such criticisms of philosophers tacking on the word God to a being outside the scope of science to be convincing because for the most part they are similar to the being Descartes talks about and conclude that God is the rational conclusion to come to based on the outlines Aquinas gave us. Even Berkeley's weird immaterialism appeals to such a powerful but benevolent being where the title of God does seem apt.

Now, there certainly are different theistic claims of varying strength an the same applies to atheistic leaning beliefs. But at the core is that both sides think they have reason for holding those beliefs (of course it doesn't mean those reasons are valid or any good). However, that they are all a belief definitively entails that there should be justification for that belief. Once again, if someone were to go around claiming evolution isn't real, would it simply be up to scientists to prove him wrong or should he also provide his reasoning for holding this belief that evolution is not real? It seems apparent that the denier should also be able to explain how he arrived at his belief, especially given the strong biological arguments that point towards evolution. The same occurs witb atheistic beliefs. Given the amount of supposed proofs and justifications for theistic belief, the atheis should at the very least address them and tell us why they fail. After all, if you reject a belief you should ideally have reasons for the rejection. Of course, I think the theist has the same responsibility to address atheistic criticisms. And as I pointed out, even agnostics should be able to defend why they think that knowledge of God is outside our scope of knowledge. That in itself is a claim and one that requires as much justification as it's converse.

I also found your thought experiment to be a rather poor comparison, as it merely deals with opinions and not critical arguments that purport to reveal the state of affairs of things. In short, a claim that you think God exists because of, say, the supposed finetuning of our universe is so drastically different from the opinion that apples are yummy that your comparison is moot. There's not much of a debate or thought process to be had about what sports I personally enjoy compared to whether I accept the premises and conclusion of a sound logical argument. And again, rejecting a belief is a thought process and as such it should be justified so the person rejecting a theistic premise has some explaining to do.

At any rate, thanks for the more serious response and taking the time to check out the link I provided. You should look more into the role philosophy is playing scientific fields! It's quite fascinating and to be honest, philosophy is extremely helpful. After all, even Descartes with his seemingly unscientific conclusions about the mind wrote Meditation of First Philosophy as a way to legitimize science to the clergy and when Newtonian Physics came collapsing with the rise of relativity and mathematical models were at peril, philosophers such as Bertrand Russell stepped in to try and rebuild the foundations and refine our approach to science. Point being, rather than treating philosophy as an academically bankrup field, you should investigate how helpful it is in helping us understand the world around us.

@wontpostmuch: "Yeah, I highly doubt you have so much as opened a philosophy book"

Here is me opening a philosophy book http://i.imgur.com/fdPq6JK.jpg

" I am in agreement that mainstream implementations of religion tend to be very far detached from the deity a philosopher is talking about. But so what? "

The deity a philosopher is talking about is so completely unrelated and shares such few characteristics with the typical monotheistic God that I really wouldn't even call it God. It's moreso defending the concept that there can be something outside the realm of science, something "more", and you're simply putting the label of God on this. God does not automatically equate to something that is outside the realm of science. There are definitely things that science can not currently study or measure, there are inherent constraints, mainly being the universe we live in and the time we live in. But you're making a huge logical leap from equating anything outside the boundaries of science with God. Why even call it God? Reason I say that is because the word God has direct religious connotations attached to it. You can't talk about the "idea" of a monotheistic God exclusive of monotheistic religion. I mean you can.. Which is what you are doing and what many philosophers seem to do, but these arguments don't hold up in everyday religious discourse.

If you want to reduce God down to a purely philosophical idea, by all means go ahead. I just don't see the point - in fact doing so in my opinion is giving false validation to otherwise archaic belief systems.

"If someone rejects the belief that God exists, then what belief are they accepting? That's the key point."

They are not forced into opting for any particular belief. Theism in general is the "belief" in a deity, not the certainty of ones existence. Gnosticism deals with certainty. That is why most atheists are actually agnostic-atheists, which means you do not adhere to a belief in whatever deity, but you concede that the existence of such a deity would be unknowable. To just put that into an analogy/thought experiment think of someone holding the belief that golf is the greatest sport, you can be anti-golfist and hold the belief that golf is not the greatest sport, however that does not necessarily mean you have to opt for another sport to fill that gap, the definition and the analysis ends there.

"And whatever belief you take when you reject theism, you are still holding a belief."

Not necessarily. It is completely and utterly possible for one to reject theism while not holding any other beliefs. This is where false connotations get attached to atheism, it's a word that has so many misconceptions associated with it when it's really a very basic and simple definition. Any further justification of ones atheism doesn't fall under the umbrella term atheism, they are now incorporating whatever subjective experiences, or logical reasoning, which led them to this position. It can be as dumb as someone saying "I'm atheist because it sounds cool", while a poor logical argument, it's valid nonetheless.

Also that Atlantic article you posted seems interesting as hell, bout to give it a read.

@duzz: cuz god doesnt exist

@benchpresser: Yeah, I highly doubt you have so much as opened a philosophy book, let alone minored in it.

Again, I don't even know where to begin with the nonsense you spout. Okay, first off, no, empirical observations or scientific inquiry is not conventional analysis. I'm not even sure what that is even supposed to mean. There are various ways of assessing claims and much as it may be a shock to you, not all of them are in the realm of science. Stating that God is outside the realm of empirical inquiry is hardly a controversial statement but that has not stopped various powerful arguments attempting to prove or disprove the existence of God. This is because there are other ways of making claims that are outside of the scope of science. I never said that God was outside the realm of logic or reason, which would make God immune to any sort of proof. Now, I want you to tell me where I argued that we do not have to provide proof for the existence of God. This is going to be good since I never came close to saying that. If you can't find me where I said that, then it becomes clear you misunderstood my whole argument since I can tell you right now I never said people claiming to know God exists are somehow exempt. Once again, your poor reading comprehension is staggering.

I highly doubt you have taken a philosophy class since you hold the commonly held belief by the public that philosophy can be used to justify just about anything. But clearly the field is much more complicated than that and only arguments that are well reasoned, valid and supported by the author succeed. There is a reason why philosophy is known for providing plenty of arguments for a deity but next to none for unicorns (although there have been arguments for why unicorns, in a certain sense, could never exist). At any rate, these abstract ideas that the idea of a deity attempts to solve are real problems to our knowledge and other foundations of the world around us, so even if theists are mistaken, the problems they point to are legitimate and require analysis. In short, philosophy is dealing with real matters. Once again, just because something is abstract does not make it any less important or valid. Were that the case, numbers, which most mathematicians agree do not exist in any significant sense in the material world, would be uselss but clearly this is not so.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up those three religions. I never once said that there were particularly strong arguments for saying that the Chritian deity is proved by philosophy (the most I claimed is that certain interpretations of Christian texts lend themselves better to fit with a God that can be philosophically defended in ways things like the FSM cannot) and I am in agreement that mainstream implementations of religion tend to be very far detached from the deity a philosopher is talking about. But so what? My only two points where that the claim that God does not exist requires justification and that there are interesting arguments for the existence of a god that deserve attention, not that any particular religion is likely to be correct.

Not to mention, most arguments atheists provide are equally rudimentary and crass. A lot of people think Dawkins and Harris are legitimate atheist philosophers when in reality they know little of the philosophy they criticize. Fact is, most people's opinions and ideas about fields which they have not studied will tend to be crass and unrefined, regardless of their beliefs.

Moving on to your definitions of atheism...there certainly are atheists that claim that God does not exist. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to think of an atheist that doesn't think that since it seems to go contrary to the very definition of atheism. Let's break apart your distinction. If someone rejects the belief that God exists, then what belief are they accepting? That's the key point. Whatever belief you wind up accepting other than the existence of God will require just as much justification as any other stance you take (unless you say you are undecided or don't know what to make of the issue) so in a very real sense atheism is also the acceptance of an alternate belief. And whatever belief you take when you reject theism, you are still holding a belief.

Contrary to popular belief, atheism isn't just a lack of belief. If this were the case, the atheist would be no different than a rock when it came to thos debate. The rock, being inanimate and without thought, certainly lacks any belief about god--in fact, it lacks any beliefs at all! But I think there is much more to the atheist position than that of a rock's lack of belief. There is a thought process behind atheist thinking that differentiates it from mere lack of belief. This is not a bad thing, on the contrary it means that the atheist has thought about what was posited and rejected (note how this is a verb!) the notion. All I'm pointing out is that these thought processes and reasons for rejecting the argument should be given so they can be examined.

If you hold two degrees and have a philosophy minor, I would love for you to be able to produce two papers you wrote in two different philosophy classes. The way you talk about philosophy it seems like you have next to no understanding of it at all.

Especially with the brash declaration that philosophy is becoming useless except in the historical sense when this could not be further from the truth. Aside from it's prevalence in matters such as linguistics and the origin of human language, it's prominent work in fields such as AI and cognitive studies, philosophy is also becoming highly important in the world of physics.

Just yesterday the Atlantic ran an article on how philosophy will be playing a prominent role in physics! And that's not even going into how it aids us in thinking about time, space, etc.
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/12/physics-philosophy-string-theory/421569/?

If you minored in philosophy, surely you studied Descartes and would be aware that his ontological argument proposes that we are all capable of knowing about God as it is a clear and distinct idea. Of course, whether he is right or wrong is up for debate but any philosopher worth his salt would be aware that there have been claims that God's existence is known to us all. Most recent of which is respected theologian Alvin Plantiga's arguments. So these aren't just old arguments, they are still alive and unresolved to this day, even if we may have good reason to be suspicious of them. Also, I think it's worth pointing out that given the extreme simplicity of Descartes ontological argument, you cannot criticize it on the basis of occams razor. In fact, that concept is more or less inapplicable when it comes to the claims of Rationalists.

Come now, you two, let's not let the one decent discussion thread in the past month degrade into a degree/major pissing contest.

@wontpostmuch: All I'm reading there is one giant copout by theists bro. You're exempting God from conventional analysis by conveniently positioning God as being non-conventional. Your entire argument is basically "God is special so we shouldn't have to prove he exists". I'm sorry, but for all practical and fundamental purposes in the real world (not your 2nd year Philosophy class) this holds zero bearing. You can use abstract philosophical ideas to prove or argue in favor of anything, I actually have a minor in philosophy so I'm well aware and versed in the concepts that you're talking about. You can definitely use philosophy to argue in favor of an abstract entity completely outside the realm of nature, however for the big three monotheistic religions they wouldn't agree with this definition, Christianity/Islam/Judaism all to a large degree believe in a God that is intertwined and part of the natural world, who is not separate from it but who has real impacts on it. If you have to make God such an abstract far-fetched idea in order to even justify an argument for Him then you've already lost the argument IMO.

You clearly have a lot of knowledge surrounding the Philosophy of God's existence, but using abstract Philosophy to justify the possible existence of God is I think detrimental as the average theist uses rudimentary arguments and completely neglects concepts like the burden of proof which I think holds a greater negative impact to general academia and general knowledge.

"I was arguing that strong claims such as "God exists" or "God does not exist" BOTH require justification."

My bad I did misinterpret what you were saying there. I completely agree, saying that God does not exist does require justification. However I think it's important to make a distinction here regarding Atheism. Atheists do not assert that God does not exist, they simply reject the belief in a God. If God appeared before an Atheist I'm pretty darn sure they would become a believer. Atheists are not the ones saying God does not exist, they are simply rejecting the proposed idea of God, which plays into the burden of proof here being completely on the Theist if we're talking about Atheism vs Theism.

"Funnily enough if you were actually involved in academia in any meaningful way, you would realize that this type of logic is what is commonly accepted."

Lol bro I have two university degrees and I'm on the Dean's list. I'm older than you and I have more academic experience than you so don't be a condescending little brat. But if you want to talk about academia, universities have been getting rid of their Philosophy programs for a reason. In a couple decades you're going to be hard pressed to find any prominent university catering to Philosophy majors. It's definitely important, especially historically speaking, but again - it's being filtered out of academia for a reason.

"Putting aside the claim that we are definitively born without any conception of God (a claim that isn't immediately obvious..."

No man it's pretty obvious. I'd like to hear your reasoning. And try not to use exceedingly abstract philosophical ideas to justify said reasoning like you keep doing. You should be able to simplify your reasoning so that a layperson can understand it. I would refer to Occam's Razor in regards to the many many steps you take to justify your points.

"By the way, next time, if you are going to be snarky and sarcastic"

Lol, you should re-read how you respond to people in this thread, you continually question the other person's intelligence and comprehension skills like you did with xreniya. Only person being ignorant or sarcastic is you. But hey I guess you're going to exempt yourself using abstract philosophical ideas that you're learning in your 2nd year Philosophy class, that's your go-to method.

@benchpresser:

Oh boy...where to begin with this one?

Okay so first off if you had actually taken the time to think about what I said, you would have realized that what I was saying is that the concept of God is very much detached from material examples like green martians or even Russell's tea cup. That is, the type of process you would go about in determining whether someone claiming that they know that green martians exist would be much different than that of determining whether an infinite being beyond the boundaries of scientific inquiry exist. In explaining why scientifically speaking martians may at least be plausible, you highlighted my point exactly. You could not apply any form of scientific thought to say anything at all about God. God is beyond the scope of science and that's why comparing him to material beings subject to the laws of nature is a poor comparison.

Moreover, if you were even remotely informed in matters of philosophy, you would understand that the concept of what God is or could be has been refined over centuries by various great thinkers so typical, pedestrian arguments like yours don't really apply or shake the foundation of typical philosophical arguments for God's existence. Like I mentioned earlier, Aquina's concept of divine simplicity is an eloquent defense for why comparisons such as yours would fail when applied to an entity like God. That is not to say we have to agree with Aquinas, but rather, if we are to engage in any form of debate over the existence of God, we would have to have a good understanding of the more intellectually refined arguments and conceptions of God.

By the way, just because there is "zero evidence" in the scientific sense for things does not mean that abstract thought processes are invalid. For example, the very foundation of science is based on the philosophy of science. It's a very abstract field and without it there would be no justification for thinking science says anything meaningful about the world, yet it being an abstract framework does not make it any less valid or stupid.

Also, I have to question just how bad your reading comprehension must be if you thought I was saying people making strong claims like "I am God" should not provide reasons for why they think that. On the contrary, I was arguing that strong claims such as "God exists" or "God does not exist" BOTH require justification. Not that one was exempt where the other was not.

Funnily enough if you were actually involved in academia in any meaningful way, you would realize that this type of logic is what is commonly accepted. For example, if a psychologist were to publish a paper on, say, how the ego functions and provide justification for his beliefs, another psychologist could not just write "I do bot believe that the ego exists" and be done with it. He would have to defend his position just as much as the psychologist positing that the ego does exist. I can go on with plenty of examples. A biologist could reasonably object to taxonomical classification, but even though they would be taking the negative position that taxonomy does not adequately describe the natural world around us, he would have to provide evidence for his claim.

In the examples you listed, someone merely claiming to be God or Obama would not be a compelling argument. It would just be a claim with no reasoning attached to it so there wouldn't be much for anyone to do there. Now if the person claiming to be God presented some sort of compelling evidence for his claim, then yes, burden of proof would then fall on those that deny his evidence.

Given that theism is a centuries old thought with plenty of philosophical justifications for why he exists, it stands to reason that at the very least an atheist should be able to explain why these arguments for why we should believe in God fail, much like why Einstein ha to rigorously defend relativity as he went against Newtonian Physics.

Again, I have to call into wuestion your ability to comprehend what you read when you say the FSM would also lie outside the scope of science. No duh. That wasn't my point. My point was that ideas like the FSM clearly do not even come close to the compelling arguments for the existence of a God. Once again, Aquinas' divine simplicity is a compelling concept because it is an interesting defense against common objections to God, but clearly divine simplicity does not apply to something like the FSM which is anything but simple. Moreover, because you are probably unaware, the overwhelming majority of arguments for the existence of God merely attempt to show that there are reasons to think why an infinite being that supercedes physical laws exist, but say nothing more about what this entity is beyond what can be proven through logic and reason. Thus, linking this philosophical defense to any specific deity from any religious tradition, be it Chritianity or Pastafarianism, is something that requires additional work. That was my point. That we can have compelling arguments for why we should think a deity exists but identifying that deity, especially as something as specific as a flying spaghetti monster, is much more difficult if not outright impossible.

As it just so happens, certain readings of the Bible can be construed as more or less aligning with this philosophical deity. Again, Aquina's concept of divine simplicity could conceivably apply to the Christian God but certainly not to the FSM. And thus, the FSM becomes a rather poor parody since it does not share the same incorporeal and simple properties that other conceptions of God do have and which are on philosophically stronger ground.

By the way, it is not that I was distancing God from other myths and legends, it is more that philosophically speaking we can at most provide compelling reasons for a deity in the bare-bones kind of sense. We can prove that a deity may exist, but it seems unlikely we could ever prove, for example, that he has ever contacted humaniy or that he is even the God of any religious or mythical tradition at all. As it turns it, the philosophically defensible concept of God just happens to be far removed from most traditional conceptions of God.

Once again, I never denied that someone claiming to know that God exists has to provide justification for their belief. I am not sure how you thought I was saying that people making such a strong claim were exempt from justifying their belief.

Putting aside the claim that we are definitively born without any conception of God (a claim that isn't immediately obvious, but then again, I doubt you are even aware of the Empiricist vs Rationalist debates), what you say isn't quite true. If someone teaches you something and gives you a reason to why they think the way they do, then it is up to you to provide a reason why their reasoning is incorrect.You are eifht when saying that if someone just states something as a fact without stating any of their reasoning, you are not obliged to prove them wrong. However if they do provide some reasoning for their beliefs then if you want to deny their claim you do have to show why their reasoning is faulty.

At any rate, someone making the claim that God does not exist is making a strong claim that certainly requires justification. Much the same way soemone saying evolution does not exist would also be required to provide their reasoning, even if it's a negative claim. I hope you agree now that denying a claim doesn't magically make you exempt from justifying your position.

By the way, next time, if you are going to be snarky and sarcastic, I suggest actually understanding what you are responding to. Otherwise you just come off as ignorant and foolish. I hope you do not so that to yourself again.

@xreniya: I'll respond to you later today, probably after getting really drunk after reading that post I just responded to above. Man that was a depressing read. But thanks for providing a more well thought out response. Glad I'm not talking to another edgy person that has a staggeringly stupefying misunderstanding of science and philosophy while also saying that science is the only way to arrive at knowledge.

Aloha snackbar everyone!! goodbye

Im just going to grab a seat and sit back for this one.

@wontpostmuch: Congrats, you have perfected the art of shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof exists for a reason dude.

"The concept of God is much more refined than that of Santa Claus or Green Men on Pluto. For example, a theist thinks that a God would reside in a spiritual realm that supersedes the material realm..."

Lmao how? You think God is more feasible than Martians living on another planet? That's actually absurd if you think that. Based on our science we know that it is very likely alien life exists, we also know of the process of evolution. This alone makes the idea of there being Martians insurmountably more likely than God for which there is zero evidence for besides people's beliefs and abstract thought processes.

You weaken the entire fundamentals of argumentation by shifting the burden of proof. If everyone were to abide by your rules of logic we would have people making claims that they themselves are God, or that they're Obama, or that there's Hobbits living in the ground, and not providing an ounce of evidence for their assertions and expecting people to prove them wrong which practically speaking is an impossible endeavor. This is why we have the burden of proof and why you should refrain from shifting the burden of proof towards people making negative claims. It's just not sensible.

"...as a theist more than likely wouldn't believe in a God that is directly knowable through scientific practices."

And a Pastafarian wouldn't believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster that is directly knowable through scientific practices. What's your point bro? You're actually weakening your own argument. You're trying too hard to compartmentalize God and distance it from other myths/legends when logically/argumentatively speaking it holds the same merit.

Burden of proof is on the person making the claim that God exists, when we are born into this world we have no concept of God, it is something we are taught and something we learn through other people. It's not the person receiving the information's responsibility to prove what they are being told isn't true, that's the definition of absurdity and the epitome of deflection.

@wumbo: savage

here is proof he exists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqlWYxT3eAg

@wontpostmuch
I understand very well what Descartes means when he distinguishes between formal and objective reality. It's not that complex of an idea. All I'm doing is disagreeing with it. If that's what's keeping you from explaining further his proof of God, then continue.

Then every claim is an epistemological one? "God does not exist." But how do you know? "Morality is completely subjective." But how do you know? "Art is also subjective." "Math is discovered, not created." Can you be sure?
I mean, I GUESS they're all epistemological... but is it necessary to label them such unless they deal directly with knowledge?

Whether or not justice is subjective or not is besides the point (I think it is). I said that justice is when an evildoer gets what he deserves, but there MUST be someone there to interpret the evildoer as an evildoer and the punishment as deserved. The point is that justice is an idea, and thus is dependent on and exists in the mind. If the one of the last two people in the world killed the other out of malice, and a big boulder then fell on and killed him, that would not be justice, because there would be no people left to interpret it as such -- in the same way that a tree falling in a forest produces no noise unless an ear is there to interpret the air vibrations as sound. I don't know why I bothered with that analogy, I think it's obvious enough that justice is an idea, and ideas are the same as cats.

That last statement I made has two issues, both of which you have brought up; the first is that ideas clearly as not the same as cats, and you seem to have trouble understanding why I claim that they are. The second is the question of whether or not ideas ARE only electric/electrical/electronic/electronical signals -- the neurology problem. I'll deal with those, then move on to Descartes. I wrote this short paragraph purely for organization.

"Clearly a cat that exists in the material sense is very different from an idea of a cat and the two are not equivalent." Well, obviously. Again, I'm not going to tell you to go out and adopt an idea and feed it cat food. But when I make such a claim, I do so in response to Descartes when he says that there are two types of reality: formal reality, which exists in all things; and objective reality, which exists only in that which represents something else. I respond by saying that there is only one type of reality. Both of us seek to answer this question(s): "Are some things more real than others? Are there different types of reality?" And in reply to this, in my opinion, terrible and objectionably vague and abstract question, I say: since ideas and atoms are made up of the same thing, then no, one is not more real than the other, and both are real in the same way. I don't need to try to disprove Descartes answer to this question, because my own ideas are in direct opposition to his. Only one of our ideas can be correct. Obviously, he's a philosophical titan and I'm just a random basiler, but I have one thing he doesn't have, and that is centuries of scientific inquiry and exploration to ungratefully and sometimes mistakenly abuse. And again, it's only in answer to this question that I say that cats and ideas are the same, nevermind that one resides as quantum foam within our skulls and the other as quantum foam without.

Secondly, neurology. This will be a way shorter paragraph because I know nothing about neurology. ARE ideas only neural activity? Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there correlation between neural activity and ideas? We don't know enough to prove causality, but there is strong data when it comes to correlation, isn't there? If you want to attempt to explain where ideas come from, you have two options: to say that ideas are electrical signals, or to say that ideas are something else/something more. In correlation we have already found some evidence for monism, but none for dualism. You could say that until we can prove without doubt the veracity of one that we should abstain from placing any amount of faith in either, but Descartes' idea of dualism is central to his arguments, are they not?

Onto Descartes and his brown table. Again, I will have to say that both the color brown and the table are, in this context, essentially the same thing. They are both physical phenomena that require minds to interpret them and label them as they are. Tables are atoms, and colors are wavelengths of light. If a human were not there to call a table a table, then it would simply be a set of structured of atoms. If a human were not there to see the color brown and call it brown, then it would not be brown; it would simply be light of a certain wavelength. The same goes for any other object, including wax. These labels are not absolute; we have invented them for convenience. In fact, anything solid could be a table, couldn't it? A chair, a dresser, a pillow, and, as long as the object can float, a pool. And other things can be brown besides tables x: the color brown is not dependent on the table. Really, you could argue that everything is basically a lot simpler than it is. A baby seems finite, but the atoms that make it up are not; they remain even when the baby dies. Brown seems abstract and infinite, doesn't it? But the moment all humans cease to exist, the color brown will no longer exist.

If you were offended on Descartes' behalf, then I apologize. I was being facetious. It's a lot more fun to me to be slightly assholeish and speak with broken grammar and poor punctuation than it is to write an essay every time I want to say something on the internet. I know Descartes' ideas make sense, whether they happen to be wrong or not.

@4evavoodoo: With how dead basil has become, it seems as though even the trolls have left back to their caves and bridges. Meanwhile, actualy conversations appear to be going on.

@xreniya: Lol well what you have to understand is that if you found the concept of objective and formal reality confusing or meaningless, then Descartes arguments would be impossible to explain. Especially for his first argument for the exiatence of God, it very much relies on these distinctions. So getting you to understand them is necessary before we tackle anything else. Furthermore, if you will just obtusely dismiss his distinctions without providing a single good reason for it, then why put in the effort for something more complicated?

When you claim that you can know that God does not exist, there is the clear epistemological claim about what we can know to be false, along with the metaphysical claim that no Gods exist. That's why I said that technically speaking it's both epistemological and metaphysical, but since our discussion was centered on who has burden of proof, the matter became a purely epistemic one.

Now, need I point out your tautological definition of justice? You just said justice is soemone getting what they justly deserve. That's extremely redundant. But what, exactly, would your observer use to decide what is just and what is not? Opinions? Some objective standard of how a crime ahould be punished? It becomes abudantly clear that whatever you answer, it will be very far removed from material objects like cats. Again, it seems incoherent to say that someone's opinion on what sequence of events amount to justice is real in the same way that a cat is. I don't know how else to explain this point. One thing exists in an abstract sense, the other as a material object. Not sure why you try to deny this.

Now, you say this: "If ideas and cats are made up of the same thing, then I fail to see how cats and ideas are different in any significant way when talking about whether one is more "real" than the other." Here, it points to why your perspective is incoherent. If ideas and cats are virtually indistinguishable from each other, then there would be absolutely no significa t difference between a cat and an idea of a cat. But this is absurd. Clearly a cat that exists in the material sense is very different from an idea of a cat and the two are not equivalent. Thus, your view makes absolutely no sense.

And yes, you are completely misunderstanding Descartes yet again. Clearly a baby and his mother would have to have the same level of reality according to Descartes as the mother's existence is contingent upon the existence of her own mother and so on. This is why he argues that all finite things have the same level of reality. They are all contingent upon something else and it is, rather crudely stated, where his argument for God comes from. The explanation for what all these finite things must all ultimately be contingent to has to be an infinite being that is not contingent upon anything to exist and whose existence explains the existence of contigent finite things around us.

Like I said, his basis of reality does make sense even if used differently than in colloquial use (much the same way a theory is used differently in science than everyday language). If we agree with Descartes that you cannot talk about what color a table is without first the table itself existing, then his distinctions hold up. That is, if no table existed, then what would be the color brown? Clearly first a table must first exist before properties such as color and size can be given to it. In this sense, a table is more real than it's properties because its properties can change and be any number of things but the object with the properties remains a table.

Of course we can disagree with Descartes on this point and plenty of philosophers do. Just that his argument does make sense and is deserving of analysis.

@wontpostmuch the reason I haven't touched Descartes for a while now is because I haven't tried to. Typing at a snails pace on a phone is very discouraging. I'll give you more thorough responses once I get back on a computer. I also first attacked Descartes proof of God. You called my interpretation crass and offered to explain. Your explanation did not once mention God. I'm still waiting on that, and then we can continue.

You were also the one who misquoted the other user's epistemological claim as a metaphysical one, then called it epistemological anyway, and I corrected you. Since when is "God does not exist" an epistemological claim?

Justice is the idea that evil doers hould get their just desserts. Tht is why I called it an idea. Justice is also WHEN evil doers get their just desserts. That is the sequence of events. But for such a thing to be justice, a human mind must be there to label the evil doers and just desserts as such, and then to label the sequence of vents "justice." Both the idea and the label are dependent on the human mind; the label too is an idea.

If ideas and cats are made up of the same thing, then I fail to see how cats and ideas are different in any significant way when talking about whether one is more "real" than the other. That's my definition of reality, and I recognise that there are other distinctions, but Descartes' seems to be very far removed from any conventional usage of the word "real."

If Descartes definition of reality really is only "how dependent is it on something else?" then that's not really a particularly convincing usage on the word "reality." Would you call a baby less real than it's mother? Of course, if I'm again misinterpreting Descartes, you can always explain further. Still waiting on Descartes proof of God, though.

My sisters phone is dying now, and mine is lon dead, so I'll respond to your statements about neurology later, cya

@4evavoodoo: Basil used to have much more of these types of threads lol

@Sezbeth: Ah I see. I only meant prove in the way that a formulation of a fine tuning argument is used as "proof" of God's existence. It in no way definitively proves God in the usual way of speaking but it is a proof in the sense that it is a logical, valid argument for a philosophical position.

@wontpostmuch: Fair enough; it would seem that I just had some disagreement with using the term "prove', rather than "argue".