29 Jul 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOr if you don't like that argument, take your own on face value:
This is not true.
It minimally asserts that the theists have insufficient evidence to warrant belief in their claim for the existence of a god.
Additionally, it presumably asserts that claims of existence should not be believed in the absence of sufficient evidence in support of them. For if it didn't assert this, you'd have no syllogism to ...[text shortened]... ed.
If these two propositions are true, then Atheism is true, because of the valid syllogism.
The Weak Atheist asserts "There is nothing that the Weak Atheist asserts."
29 Jul 05
3 edits
A third argument:
Suppose what you say is true, that Weak Atheism asserts nothing.
That means the set of claims of Weak Atheism is the empty set.
That means that any other logically consistent set of claims is consistent with Weak Atheism, for the union of the empty set with any set does not alter the original set's consistency.
That means that the claim "God exists" is consistent with Weak Atheism.
If you hold that "God exists" is not consistent with Weak Atheism, then we have a proof by contradiction that it is false that Weak Atheism asserts nothing.
29 Jul 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThese are reactive statements on the part of the atheist in relation to theistic claims for the existence of god. Of course it assumes that we have the ability to evaluate the theists' claims on some objective grounds. That goes without saying. But the atheist makes no independant claims of his own.
This is not true.
It minimally asserts that the theists have insufficient evidence to warrant belief in their claim for the existence of a god.
Additionally, it presumably asserts that claims of existence should not be believed in the absence of sufficient evidence in support of them. For if it didn't assert this, you'd have no syllogism to ...[text shortened]... ed.
If these two propositions are true, then Atheism is true, because of the valid syllogism.
Perhaps you should compose your posts on a word processor, Dr. S. The constant revisions are exremely annoying as one is never sure when you're done tampering with your original statement. You were at three revisions when I started my reply, let's see if you've made any more in the time it took me to write this.
29 Jul 05
Originally posted by rwingettSo, do you now agree that Weak Atheism is something that can be true or false?
These are reactive statements on the part of the atheist in relation to theistic claims for the existence of god. Of course it assumes that we have the ability to evaluate the theists' claims on some objective grounds. That goes without saying. But the atheist makes no independant claims of his own.
Perhaps you should compose your posts on a word proce ...[text shortened]... n I started my reply, let's see if you've made any more in the time it took me to write this.
29 Jul 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNo, of course not, Dr. S.
So, do you now agree that Weak Atheism is something that can be true or false?
The theist says, "god exists." This is a true or false claim. Either he exists or he doesn't.
To this the atheist replies, "I don't believe it." His reply has no content. There is no true or false value to it.
You can try to undermine the grounds on which the atheist bases his disbelief and claim that they are true or false, but that is another argument altogether.
What you are consistently trying to do with your misapplication of logic is to try to force me into claiming that the theist's claim for god is false. No matter how many syllogisms and contorted equations you throw at me, I will never concede that withholding belief from a claim equals the positive assertion that the claim is false. I genuinely fail to understand why this is such a difficult point for you to wrap your head around. You're more dogged in your pursual of this singular point than any theist has ever been.
29 Jul 05
6 edits
Originally posted by rwingettIf your position was solely that you decline to affirm the theist's belief, then we would have no issue.
I will never concede that withholding belief from a claim equals the positive assertion that the claim is false. I genuinely fail to understand why this is such a difficult point for you to wrap your head around.
The issue I take is that you additionally "act as though" his claim is false. This amounts to denying his claim. Why? Consider a person who actually does deny the theist's claim. Is there anything to distinguish that person from you? I think there is not, because you "act as though" the theist's claim is false - just like the disbeliever does; you "act as though" you deny the claim - just like the disbeliever does. What action would the disbeliever take that you wouldn't?
What else could "act as though the claim is false" mean, if not "act is if I disbelieved the claim"? And if you act as if you disbelieve the claim, you act like the disbeliever, which means there is nothing distinguishing the two of you.
You are trying to get the best of both worlds. You want to mix and match "declining to affirm" and "denying." Such a thing cannot logically be done.
29 Jul 05
Originally posted by rwingettThe Weak Atheist says, "The theist's claim is not justified by evidence." This is a true or false claim. Either the evidence does or does not justify the theist's belief.
The theist says, "god exists." This is a true or false claim. Either he exists or he doesn't.
29 Jul 05
Originally posted by rwingettRwingo: " ... The regularity with which certain debates keep recurring certainly makes me think so."
O what a wearisome burden it can be. It seems that every few months, or so, another batch of theists show up on the site making the exact same statements. Tell me, Ivanhoe, are all theists indocrinated with the same theistic propoganda textbook? The regularity with which certain debates keep recurring certainly makes me think so.
.... lol ..... it's called public opinion, Rwingo ...... it changes very very slowly and we all hope it changes in a direction we ourselves look upon as favourable 😀
29 Jul 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe difference is that what you call a disbeliever (I assume this is a strong atheist?) has fatally opened himself up to sharing the theist's burden of proof. This is the theist's dream come true. By having the strong atheist make the irresponsible claim, "god does not exist", the theist has managed to wriggle out from having to shoulder the entire burden of proof himself. He is able to turn the table on the strong atheist and demand to have him support his own independant claim. The strong atheist is no more able to prove that a god (or gods) does not exist than the theist is able to prove that one does.
If your position was solely that you decline to affirm the theist's belief, then we would have no issue.
The issue I take is that you additionally "act as though" his claim is false. This amounts to denying his claim. Why? Consider a person who actually does deny the theist's claim. Is there anything to distinguish that person from you? I ...[text shortened]... o mix and match "declining to affirm" and "denying." Such a thing cannot logically be done.
I will keep the entire burden of proof exactly where it belongs: on the shoulder of the theist. In every instance I will stop short of claiming that god does not exist. I will continue to acknowledge it is possible that god may very well exist. But until the theist can come up with something more convincing to substantiate his claim, I will have no choice but to withhold my belief from it, and will act as though the claim were false.
I have to go to work. Don't expect anything more from me until later.
29 Jul 05
4 edits
Originally posted by rwingettDo we agree on at least this much: "God exists" is a claim logically consistent with your set of beliefs.
The difference is that what you call a disbeliever (I assume this is a strong atheist?) has fatally opened himself up to sharing the theist's burden of proof. This is the theist's dream come true. By having the strong atheist make the ir ...[text shortened]... e to go to work. Don't expect anything more from me until later.
The only way that claim would not be consistent with your set of beliefs is if its negation - God does not exist - can be logically derived from your set of beliefs.
If such a derivation is not possible, you are required to admit that "God exists" is consistent with your set of beliefs, for that's just what "consistent" means.
But if such a derivation is possible, then you do in fact deny "God exists" and assert its negation, for the only way to have "God exists" be inconsistent with your set of beliefs is to have its union with your belief set logically yield the contradiction "God exists AND God does not exist."
So, which is it? Is or is not "God exists" consistent with your set of beliefs? I would sincerely like to get to the bottom of this so that we can put this tired debate aside.
30 Jul 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI realize I'm not the person being addressed here, but I thought I'd respond anyway.
Do we agree on at least this much: "God exists" is a claim logically consistent with your set of beliefs. The only way that claim would not be consistent with your set of beliefs is if its negation - God does not exist - can be logically derived [...] yield the contradiction "God exists AND God does not exist." So, which is it? Is or is not "G ...[text shortened]... I would sincerely like to get to the bottom of this so that we can put this tired debate aside.
"God exists" is compatible [synonym for consistent] with the "Weak Atheist" view -- because they do not assert that God does not exist. Instead, they merely assert that they have no belief in a God, because the question is irrelevant. The existence or non-existence of a god is unimportant, and therefore they are without a god, and act in a manner that theists would say is acting as though god doesn't exist...because his existence is outside the scope of their lives and their view of life.
"God exists" is not compatible with the "Strong Atheist" view: they assert that God does not exist. There is no God. In this situation there is no contradiction, because they actively deny that there is a god.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
30 Jul 05
6 edits
Originally posted by echeceroThat's right. Such compatibility is a characteristic of the Weak Atheism that RWingett describes. I just want him to acknowledge it. That is, I want him to acknowledge that a Weak Atheist can assert "God exists" and still be the sort of Weak Atheist that RWingett describes; that is, such an assertion would not make that Weak Atheist's set of beliefs inconsistent. (If such an assertion would in fact make the Weak Atheist's beliefs inconsistent, then it must be true that that Weak Atheist actually does deny the claim "God exists." He can't have it both ways -- he can't say that "God exists" is not consistent with Weak Atheism while simultaneously insisting that he doesn't deny the claim "God exists." Although, I anticipate that he will in fact continue to attempt to have and eat this cake, and continue to make himself look foolish before those who understand logic. )
"God exists" is compatible [synonym for consistent] with the "Weak Atheist" view -
30 Jul 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI acknowledge that it is possible that god exists, and have done so all along.
That's right. Such compatibility is a characteristic of the Weak Atheism that RWingett describes. I just want him to acknowledge it. That is, I want him to acknowledge that a Weak Atheist can assert "God exists" and still be the sort of Weak Atheist that RWingett describes; that is, such an assertion would not make that Weak Atheist's set of ...[text shortened]... nd eat this cake, and continue to make himself look foolish before those who understand logic. )
The kind of weak atheism that you seem to think that only I subscribe to, is what virtually every atheist also subscribes to. If you spent any time reading any atheist literature, or debating atheists other than the ones on this forum, you would see that. Atheists who would describe themselves as strong atheists are in the minority, by far. Richard Dawkins is one who has advocated strong atheism in the past, but as much as I admire Mr. Dawkins, I think he overplays his hand in this regard. I find strong atheism to be simply an untenable position.
I would almost be willing to say that the literalist, 3 "O", christian god of the bible does not exist, but what would it really accomplish? And what would be the cost in doing so? By using the "problem of evil" argument, for example, you can demonstrate that such a god is a logical contradiction that could not possibly exist. But what would you have accomplished? Only in showing that that theist doesn't know what he's talking about. But that doesn't prove that a somewhat different god (who posesses attributes other than the ones attributed to him by the theist) exists. If need be, the theist can keep retreating until he is left with only the deistic god, and against that there can be no conclusive argument. The cost (as I mentioned) is having to open yourself up to sharing the theist's burden of proof. The meager gains simply do not match the cost. As such, I will content myself with weak atheism. I will never claim that god does not exist.
I also tire of this never ending argument. If you really want to pursue it further, I would recommend going to the agnostic/atheist forum at about.com. There are many atheists there who are more capable than I in following your forays into formal logic.