The Presumptuousness of Atheism

Originally posted by dj2becker
I presume it is the weak atheist that says we cannot know, right?

Is that not a positive truth claim?

No, other way round.

Originally posted by Starrman
No, other way round.

OK thanks for clarifying that.

Is the weak atheist not making a positive truth claim by claiming to be an ignoramus?

Originally posted by Starrman
Agnosticism says we cannot know god, through some lack of ability or sensory process perhaps. Weak atheism says we deny god's existence until we see reasonable proof. The Agnostic may never know god, the weak atheist may yet, should the evidence arise.

Absolute truth would require absolute proof; no such thing exists. Life is relative to the percept ...[text shortened]... oes. So to with the various aspects of life. I consider the skeptic as foolish as the theist.

Absolute truth would require absolute proof; no such thing exists.

So therefore absolute truth does not exist?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Absolute truth would require absolute proof; no such thing exists.

So therefore absolute truth does not exist?[/b]

Are you having trouble reading?

Originally posted by dj2becker
OK thanks for clarifying that.

Is the weak atheist not making a positive truth claim by claiming to be an ignoramus?

No.

Originally posted by Starrman
Absolute truth would require absolute proof; no such thing exists.

Absolute truth would require absolute proof; no such thing exists.

And you are absolutely sure about this?

Originally posted by Starrman
No.

I thought you said that weak atheists claim that they don't know?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Absolute truth would require absolute proof; no such thing exists.

And you are absolutely sure about this?[/b]

I am common sense inductionally sure that this is the most parsimonious option. Why is it you can never take on board any of the previous comments of those you talk to and apply them to further discussion?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I thought you said that weak atheists claim that they don't know?

I said they don't know whether god exists or not and so deny that existence until presented with reasonale evidence to the contrary. The question you just asked was an entirely different one. Please pay attention to what I say, I refuse to keep justifying from point zero with every further post you make.

Originally posted by Starrman
I am common sense inductionally sure that this is the most parsimonious option. Why is it you can never take on board any of the previous comments of those you talk to and apply them to further discussion?

I am common sense inductionally sure that this is the most parsimonious option.

This means that you are not absolutely sure, since you said that absolute proof/truth does not exist.

But in saying that there is no absolute proof, you are making an absolute statement, which implies that the absolute statement you just made cannot be absolutely true.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]I am common sense inductionally sure that this is the most parsimonious option.

This means that you are not absolutely sure, since you said that absolute proof/truth does not exist.

But in saying that there is no absolute proof, you are making an absolute statement, which implies that the absolute statement you just made cannot be absolutely true.[/b]

Urgh! Why must you be so irritatingly dense? No, what I am saying is that I make a decision based on the common sense view of the world to which I hold. As such and acknowledging that the nature of absolute truth is a pretty damn ridiculous anyway, I choose to make a claim based on the ease of how things appear to be. It follows logically from the nature of proof when faced with the nature of interpretation that any claim to of absoluteness is unprovable.

Trying to play semantic games with me does not prove you point, nor does it make your position look any more consistent. I am equally able to offer you the 'can god make a rock too heavy to lift'? nonsense. That I choose not to is because I realise the futility of such a childish process of debate.

Originally posted by Starrman
I said they don't know whether god exists or not and so deny that existence until presented with reasonale evidence to the contrary. The question you just asked was an entirely different one. Please pay attention to what I say, I refuse to keep justifying from point zero with every further post you make.

Maybe it would help if you payed attention to your own words as well. 😉

I said they don't know whether god exists or not and so deny that existence until presented with reasonale evidence to the contrary.

And just after that you made the self-defeating statement that there is no absolute truth, which is in itself an absolute statement, which imples that the very statement that you are making is not true.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Maybe it would help if you payed attention to your own words as well. 😉

[b]I said they don't know whether god exists or not and so deny that existence until presented with reasonale evidence to the contrary.

And just after that you made the self-defeating statement that there is no absolute truth, which is in itself an absolute statement, which imples that the very statement that you are making is not true.[/b]

That is not an absolute statement, or a self-defeating statement. That you don't understand that is not my problem, go back to your cut & paste jobs, I have no time for your lack of reasoning ability.

Originally posted by Starrman
Urgh! Why must you be so irritatingly dense? No, what I am saying is that I make a decision based on the common sense view of the world to which I hold. As such and acknowledging that the nature of absolute truth is a pretty damn ridiculous anyway, I choose to make a claim based on the ease of how things appear to be. It follows logically from the nature ...[text shortened]... That I choose not to is because I realise the futility of such a childish process of debate.

As such and acknowledging that the nature of absolute truth is a pretty damn ridiculous anyway,

You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Surely, the burden of justification is always on the person who makes any positive claim, whether that claim is about God or not. Some people are reluctant to bear that burden, however. They suggest that others are presumptuous for not naturally believing what they believe. Now, that *is* presumptuous!

So the burden of justification is always on the person who makes any positive claim and not a negative claim? Try saying that in a court of law after you have defamed anothers reputation by expousing negative untruths about them. At least you see one truth, however, the theist holds claim to the postitive and the atheist holds claim to the negative. That we can both agree upon. As for me I prefer to hold on to the positive claim. I suppose the atheist will always see the glass half empty.