'True lies of new Atheism'.

(1)...Thanks to William Craig’s material for contributing heavily to this thread.

(2)... This is a long thread; it’s possible to understand the thrust of the entire thread by reading the first paragraph. I was through because I did not want to venture out on tangents.

True lies of new Atheism AKA the 'POA'.

I have been stymied more than once when attempting to get some atheists to defend their paradigm, and or comments during a debate. The declining to defend their atheism usually happens when I am winning a debate. It’s quite irksome to have someone in the ropes and can't go in for the KO! This new definition of atheism is somewhat of a new thing. The new definition briefly states that an atheist does not have to share the burden of proof to defend his atheism. Of course I agree that there is an important logical difference between believing that there is no God and not believing that there is a God. There’s a difference between saying, “I do not believe (p)” and “I believe (not-p).” Logically the placement of the negation makes a huge difference. However atheists are mistaken in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.

As I mentioned this is fairly new, around the mid 20th century the so-called 'presumption of atheism (POA)' was being bandied about in atheist circles. On first glance it seems to claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should say that God does not exist. Atheism then becomes a default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.
That alleged presumption is clearly wrong. For the claim that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God!” Therefore, the former claim must be proven just as the latter should. So it should be noted that only the agnostic makes no knowledge claim (if God exists or doesn’t) But when you look more closely at how cheerleaders of the ‘presumption of atheism’ (POA) used the term “atheist,” you find that they were defining the word in a non-standard way which is identical with “non-theist." So understood the term would include agnostics, traditional atheists, even those who think the question meaningless (aka verificationists).

As redefined “atheist” trivializes the claim of the POA because if we use this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It’s just a psychological state which is shared by people who hold many views or no view at all. If we accept the re-definition of atheism, infants who have absolutely no opinion on the matter would be atheists! In fact, Bogie my basset hound is an atheist because he has no opinion about God. Still, we would still require validation in order to know either that God exists or doesn’t . And in my debates that is the prime question.

So why would atheists want to belittle their position? It's obvious that a deceptive diversion is being attempted by some atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view ie that there is no God, then atheists MUST provide proof to support this view. Nevertheless many atheists admit freely that they cannot mount such a burden of proof. So IMO they attempt to evade their epistemic responsibility by changing atheism so that it’s not a view but rather a psychological condition which makes no claims. They are really faux atheists, and are really agnostics who want to claim the title of atheism without accepting its responsibilities.

reva

 

Rev, if you keep stuff like that up, you just might replace me as the most hated Christian down here

 

Actually, I think this would be a welcome change of pace. There are some truly agnostic atheists out there who are atheists in the "without-belief" vein. They are atheists in the same way that my baby niece is an atheist. However, there are many more atheists who are perfectly happy making the positive assertion that God does not exist until they are challenged on it, and then they retreat to the "simply unconvinced" position.

I personally think that the argument from evil and the argument from inconsistent revelations are powerful arguments against the existence of God (or at least certain kinds of gods). However, they aren't much use against Deism.

 

Ha ha..well the truth hurts eh? I don’t think anyone hates us do they? It’s my hope to maybe bump start some helpful introspection among the offending atheists. If we are able to get these things out in the open maybe it will be a first step in helping the undecided folks. If they find that they really can not defend their position, maybe that will allow those that are undecided to choose theism over atheism!

The POA is truly a horrid thing and is at best a self imposed problem, at worst its a malicious attempt to shirk defining a belief system, or maybe I should say a paradigm eh? And that denial allows too much wiggle room and provides an unfair advantage to the atheists. Who wouldn’t have a good chance to win an argument if they did not have to defend their beliefs etc ?

reva

 

I should add the argument from divine hiddenness to my list as well.

 

Personally I do not have a problem with the concept of why God allows evil.(I have other issues ha ha). I think there are good explanations of why the universe has to be as it, is evil warts and all. Nevertheless you are correct about the problem of evil. Its difficult to convince a unbeliever etc how God could allow pain and suffering and still be a loving God etc. Even mother Theresa had serious problems that became public with that very thing. I hope to do a thread on that very subject, however its not easy in a forum setting! Mostly due to the length of a thread subject that is a semester long class in seminary or college! Thanks to everyone for the comments.

 

My personal opinion is that God designed this universe to run on natural law. Supernatural events might ruin the 'purity' of a natural law universe. That is why I believe that God always ('always' is a debatable claim) uses a temporal messenger or disembodied voices etc to communicate with man. The burning bush that would not consume itself, visions, dreams, is how God communicates with man, ever wonder why that is the case. When he had to come to stay apparently he came in a flesh and blood mans body (Jesus).

I feel God is not omnipotent in this universe by his own design, and may not be even in his own realm, although if pressed I would say that its more probable than not that he is perfect in his realm.

reva

 

Whoops, it breaks right there. What paradigm would that be? And what do you even think to accomplish by asserting there's something to defend about a mind not entangled in fairy tales?

^That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

Of course you do. You will always win a "debate" concerning your own fantasy. That's a given.

That's not a new thing. Since there is no claim, there's never been a burden of proof.

... etc. etc. etc. ...

Sorry, RevAnarchist, but it's just gapingly boring. The same old yawns over and over.

Look at the bright side, though, you already won this "debate" before you even hit the first key on your keyboard. That's gotta cheer up an old biker like yourself.

 

I know I'm gullible and naïve for trying to explain this once more, RevAnarchist, but here goes anyway.

Imagine you're walking with a friend, when he sudddenly points in one direction and says, "Look, there's an the angel over there!". You look but can't see anything, or, at least, you can see nothing that looks like an angel. So naturally you turn to your friend and say to him, "There is no angel".

When an atheist says to you that there is no god, it is a response to the claims that there is a god. It is NOT a claim in and of itself. It is an attention to, and a scrutiny of a claim made by someone else.

The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim, not on the one who observes how that burden is carried. If it is not carried properly but continues to fail then it is fully within the scope of reason to dismiss the claim as invalid, i.e., that there is no such existence as claimed.

 

I don't need to read any more...

First, a standard tactic of the theist is to avoid defending his own paradigm...because there is no defense. Likely he is committing the crime he imputes. Second, I'm certainly not going to take his word that he's winning any debates.

 

Hello Mr Freeware. I am somewhat happy to see you here because I am interested in your opinion. With all due respect I am going to edit out belittling comment at my whim, but may choose to leave it to as an textbook example of symptoms of someone presenting with an inferiority complex for my next night class.

You already know but I will humor you; A atheist paradigm is a world view of someone that is an atheist. It differs from a theists or an agnostics for obvious reasons.

Fairy Tale ; fair·y tale
(plural fair·y ta·les)
n
1. story about fairies: a story for children about fairies or other imaginary beings and events, often containing a moral message

Religion ; re·li·gion

re·li·gion [ri líjjən]
(plural re·li·gions)
n
1. religion beliefs and worship: people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life
2. religion particular system: a particular institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine
3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 2010-2012 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

I chose to provide you with half an answer anyway

How would you know the subject of the debate I mentioned? I may be debating the validity of atheism for example. If that were the case it may indeed be about a fantasy (atheism?).

Reread the thread you missed it.

Yes, there has always been a burden of proof, however …just read the thread again or for the first time. And you might want to brush up on your history of philosophy as well. Are you familiar with Anthony flew? No, I think not. He was a world class atheist philosopher that became a theist late in life. In his atheist days discussed POA, although it wasn’t called presumption of atheism in his day. You would do yourself good to read his work.

I don't remember discussing this subject of atheism in this forum. The subject being the reason I find the POA so dishonest. Nevertheless, I was fairly sure you would claim something like that. Trust me you should relax you and try to learn something new. With all due respect, the more advanced a subject the more boring it is to a layperson, so I suspect this thread may exceedingly boring to you. Ha ha yes that was a bit of levity at your expense. Really though, you should learn the details because I am sure you will be hearing much more about it.

Debate what debate? You are agreeing with me. I am sure you will find yourself doing a lot more of that in the near future, ha ha. You know, I am rather cheerful just now! I think I will go for a ride. I don’t know a kick start only HD in this heat? With a magneto ignition. With a linkert DC non accelerator pump carb? If I can get the beast started I suppose I could ride over to the campus. I might find some chemical relief, a cold beer, and an interesting conversation there..

reva

 

First my thread was about most atheists shirking their responsibility and not defending their world views by hiding behind a dishonest claim of non-responsibility.As for your comments, I can say that I defend my paradigm each time its challenged. In fact every theist I know will not hide behind a silly concept of claiming he doesn’t have to provide proof for his paradigm etc. If your words are true provide one example where I do not defend my views?

I am waiting...tick tock tick …ha ha~

reva

 

Please re read my thread. I began addressing that in the last part of the first paragraph.

WAIT!!>

No nix that request, if you did not get it the first time you wont understand it reading it again. Let me explain why you are wrong outside the confines of my thread. But I gotta run for a bit brb. I was just nice enough to save you some head scratching and rereading eh?

You might want to study this too;

As per Antony Flew
the word ‘atheist’ has in the present context to be construed in an unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek prefix ‘a-’ being read in this same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is in . . . words as ‘amoral’ . . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell, 1997], s.v. “The Presumption of Atheism,” by Antony Flew)

byeee

reva

 

What is there for an atheist to defend though? We simply say that there is no evidence to support the notion of a higher power, let alone a higher power described in any one particular religion. You say it was Jesus that did x, y, and z, I say it was Maynard.

Its those who say there is a higher power, based on no evidence at all (aside from maybe a 2,000 metaphorical work of fiction) who are the ones who carry the burden of proof.

Theists, mostly Christians on this board, seem to think that atheists are hell bent against Christianity. We are against all religions that contradict the observations made in the world around us. This is just another "best way to beat an atheist", "best way to convince him there is a hairy 93 eyed bear octopus, with paperclip claws, and rocket feet, was the creator of the universe", "the atheist agenda to destroy our way of life and apple pie" thread. Doesn't have any real debatable value because it falls into the same fallacies that the skeptics amougst us dismiss.

Atheism is not that hard to understand. We do not take an argument on blind faith, we want empirical evidence and peer review. We disbelieve in your god the same way that you disbelieve the creator of the universe being a hairy 93 eyed bear octopus, with paperclip claws, and rocket feet. There is no secret agenda to bar religion and destroy your apple pie.
We just take offense to the notion that people are denied basic civil rights on the basis of faith being offended.

 

No, you're not. And I can prove it:

See? You're interested in your opinion, only.

LOL So an atheist paradigm is the world view of someone who is an atheist?

Wow, RevAnarchist. Inferiority may be more than just a feeling.

I see you're committed to word games, too. Good for you, I'm sure.

Yup, fantasy is an apt description of the subject that atheism concerns. I already said as much.

This amounts to your previous comment that an atheist paradigm is a paradigm of someone who's an atheist, - which is absolutely nothing.

If you have something you want to say then you should perhaps say what it is.

 

Since it's clear you did not understand the nature of my objection...

A proper debate involves two sides defending opposed positions. Theists have no good defense so they typically base their entire debate tactic on looking for holes in the opposition's case. This is done for the sole purpose of avoiding the subject of the holes in their own case. When this occurs, the debate is no longer proper because one side has abrogated his responsibility to defend his position. This is why I am unimpressed when a theist tells me that an atheist will not defend his paradigm, as in most cases the theist is not defending his either.

 

If you can make me scratch my head, RevAnarchist, I doubt you want to know the reason.

But by all means explain away.

Umm, ok.

- An atheist is someone who explicitly denies claims of existences that cannot be proved. Check.
- The word atheist relates to the word theist as amoral relates to moral. Check.
- An atheist is not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of deities claimed to exist but someone who is not a theist. Check.

 

I doubt it.

Even if he doesn't agree with what it means to be atheist, at least he understands the difference between "no belief in god" and "belief in no god", which you refuse to do.



Anyway, to the OP...

I've always wondered why theists have such a hard time understanding atheism. Of course I may be wrong, but I've come to the conclusion that it's just simply because it flies in complete opposition to their world-view. I'm not necessary referring to belief/no belief in God, but more-so, that the concept of belief itself (or faith) is so essential to that world-view that the idea of one lacking any such belief is just incomprehensible. I don't mean that in a derogatory way, just that many theists literally cannot grasp the idea of having no belief/faith, as it is such a fundamental principle to their life. As such, they consistently assert that atheism is a belief that no god exists. Anything else simply does not make sense to them.

I realize that the point of this thread is in argument against this idea, but quoted above is exactly correct; it is a perfect description.

If everyone who is actually an atheist explains it to you this way, and it is only theists who disagree, wouldn't it makes sense to listen? Not doing so essentially boils down to you telling us what we "believe" (you know what I mean - figure of speech).

I'm not entirely sure how to parse this (perhaps some information on his meaning is missing from the quote), as he begins with a false premise: "Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence . . . of God". As I have explained above, this is not true, not by actual atheists that is. The rest of what he says is correct, referring to the "Greek prefix ‘a-’", etc.

Simply not a theist.

 

I see the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) machine is full gear today.

1 – Atheism is simple the rejection in belief of any and all deities. Nothing more, nothing less. This is not a new idea, so the premise of this thread is nonsense from the beginning.

2 - “Atheism then becomes a default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.
That alleged presumption is clearly wrong”

This always cracks me up. You CANNOT prove a negative, it is as simple as that. I cannot prove that 'god' does not exist. However, since there has never been one shred of verifiable evidence of this 'god', I can only conclude its a figment of your imagination. BY ALL MEANS, PLEASE PRESENT ANY AND ALL EMPERICAL VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE FOR THIS 'GOD'. I am all ears. This will go to everyone out here. $20 says you don't have any, nor will anyone EVER produce any.

But since you want to come into a public forum and proclaim 'god' this and 'god' that, then yes, the onus is on YOU to prove it. Simple as that. This is the same as me saying The Invisible Pink Panda is this and that, and the onus is on you to prove it doesn't exist. That is just absurd.

3 – I can prove that certain god(s) do not exist. The 'god' the bible speaks of is clearly a fictitious creature. The book of genesis can even begin to hold up to scientific scrutiny. Pure fiction. If the first book of the bible is fiction, then the rest is. Pure and simple. To say otherwise would be saying Star Wars A New Hope is fiction, but the Star War The Empire Strikes Back is not. Just an absolute absurd statement.

'God' is whatever people what their 'god' to be. Evolution does not fit in the bible in any way shape or form. No problem thou, we'll just say its 'gods' way of doing things and move on. Physics? 'God' invented the Laws of Physics and we are just 'learning he mind of god' Why isn't this in the bible? Oh well, you can expect simple man to understand Evolution or Laws of Physics

I can go on and on and on with the stupidity of the believers. How y'all just toss out all common sense when dealing with your imaginary creatures. Here is a prime example: 'God' is omnipresent. Really? Then we should be able to detect him! Nope, 'god' has made himself undetectable to us. Really? So he is taking away our freewill to find him. So much for having freewill. I guess we only have as much freewill as 'god' allows us too

 

Agh, so you objection is to tell us how debate works?

Guess what, again, if you cannot defend your paradigm, you have no right to demand others do it. Almost every Christian on this forum has defined the reasons for belief in God - no atheist has outlined them, except Modus, who used philosophic arguementation to state that we were all slave - so there is no God because we are slaves. Gotcha.

You are unimpressed with a lack of evidence and defense, which should lead you to extoll the virtue of a well reasoned and supported arguement - the very definition of debate - as always though, guess what is absent from your arguementation?

Its only a problem for theesitic arguementation though

 

YES. Because this is how a proper debate works. If both sides are not in support of a position, it is not a debate.

Besides, I hate this whole line arguement anyway. It's so shallow!

The term atheism can be taken two ways.
1) as non-theism. If we take it this way, an old shoe is an atheist because it does not believe there is a God. An old shoe doesn't believe anything. It lacks the capacity to have any beliefs.

2) as a reaction to theism, hence Atheism. In this sense there were no atheists prior to the existence of theists.

now, BOTH SENSES ARE VALID. The way forward is idiotically simple. All that has to happen is for the atheist to specify which of these two senses he is employing.

finis

The charge that the atheist is trying to "redefine" atheism is a clear attempt to accuse him of committing the fallacy of moving the goalpost. But there is no moving of the goalpost. There is only a lack of agreement over which sense of "atheist" is being employed.

The stupidity of this whole argument is one reason why I do not accept that any other atheist speaks for me.

I CAN defend my paradigm. But do not accuse me of not defending my paradigm when there is no actual debate.

 

I rebutted everything in that post VIA my thread, even the bit about the shoe. (but I used Bogie) i.e.;

“As redefined “atheist” trivializes the claim of the POA because if we use this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It’s just a psychological state which is shared by people who hold many views or no view at all. If we accept the re-definition of atheism, infants who have absolutely no opinion on the matter would be atheists! In fact, Bogie my basset hound is an atheist because he has no opinion about God. Still, we would still require validation in order to know either that God exists or doesn’t . And in my debates that is the prime question. “

Therein is the dishonesty if I understand you correctly. i.e.

That alleged presumption is clearly wrong. For the claim that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God!” Therefore, the former claim must be proven just as the latter should. So it should be noted that only the agnostic makes no knowledge claim (if God exists or doesn’t) But when you look more closely at how cheerleaders of the ‘presumption of atheism’ (POA) used the term “atheist,” you find that they were defining the word in a non-standard way which is identical with “non-theist." So understood the term would include agnostics, traditional atheists, even those who think the question meaningless (aka verificationists).



Theist to atheist ; "You are an atheist right?"

Atheist; "Yep."

Theist; "Can you explain your paradigm, also what is Atheism ?"

Atheist; "Uhhhh…ahhhh…."

reva

 

What if it becomes possible for a regular person to design a universe with software and create this universe inside a computer? Does this normal person become God?

My point: you have a miniscule idea of God. I would argue that the ability to create is not and can not be an attribute by which to define God.

 

No sensible atheist says "there is no God" without knowing first which God he is talking about. Herein is YOUR dishonesty.

You make me feel raped by getting drawn into this pointless discussion with you.

 

Once again, the theist is just in "lets tact on to atheism whatever we want mode'".

As stated before, Atheism is simple the rejection in belief of any and all deities. Nothing more, nothing less.

Notice the word rejection...I hope the theist can, since its in big red letters!

In order to REJECT something, you must first poses some type of knowledge of it to reject it. Tell us Rev, how can an infant have knowledge of 'god'?