• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Big "A" Atheism versus little "a" atheism

Morton said:
I don't have faith in god. I'm not saying that our existence is proof of a god or gods I'm saying that god or gods can't be excluded. I don't have to "show you wrong" because you've only made statements that are to be accepted without question or proof. I.e. dogma. No use responding to it.
Click to expand...

No use responding yet here you are...


So tell me why I cant rule out gods, is it because you say so or?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
You are the one that said "descended" If you meant the "source of existence itself" you shouldnt have mention what is commonly understood as word dealing with evolution.

At any rate you only mentioned a vague generalized idea, that has nothing to do with atheists.
Click to expand...
Descent has many connotations.
 
Morton said:
We could have been created in the basement of some alien lizard kid. The god of the bible has as much probability. The problem with some/most atheists is that they can only argue against the god of the bible. They're more anti-Xtian/anti-Deist more than anything.
Click to expand...

That's really less to do with objections to specific religious doctrine and more that the American brands of Protestantism are the local offenders. That is the religion that is harming people locally. Movements against the harm cause by religion in Saudi Arabia focuses on Islam. Movements in Israel focus on Judaism. People tend to focus on problems in their own back yards.

RogueWarrior said:
The proposition is: Do gods exist?
The theist position (i.e. belief that gods exist) or the anti-theist position (i.e. belief that gods don't exist) are both positive claims that require proof. Neither one is the default position despite claims from both groups. Both groups are yelling at and past each other, demanding that each disprove the other`s claims; all the while ignoring the fact that in order to win the argument, they must prove their own claim.

The default position is disbelief of either claim until one or the other is demonstrated to be correct. The default position for any claim is disbelief until sufficient evidence proves the claim. This is the atheist position regarding the proposition: Do gods exist? Atheists do not have sufficient credible evidence to believe a god exists.

In truth, atheists and anti-theists have common ground in that in both instances 'god' is not there. In one gods are denied and the other disbelieved.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. How can the default position of something existing be both that it does and doesn't? That a claim is false is not a positive assertion. Atheists claim that theists don't have any proof. We don't require anyone to prove that dinosaurs are all dead, or that hobbits aren't real. Why would you contend that one god of the thousands that human beings have worshiped is any different? Do those who think that Amaterasu isn't real (which I presume includes you) need to find proof of that, as well?

Logicman said:
You should look at the evidence, which you conveniently ignore. Here's something you may have never known:

A Brief Sample of Archaeology Corroborating the Claims of the New Testament | Cold Case Christianity
Click to expand...

None of which are evidence of any deities or magic. No one is arguing that Pilate wasn't a real figure. No one is arguing that Jewish culture did not exist in the general times and places in the bible. No one is arguing that Romans didn't crucify people, including thieves and political dissidents. What archaeological find will supposedly prove the existence of an afterlife?

Logicman said:
Nuts. We have the earliest extant manuscripts that haven't been revised, reinterpreted, and/or compiled into the "Bible." Try waving your magic wand and make those disappear.
Click to expand...

If we have the earliest version of the Iliad, should we start making sacrifices to Athena? I don't really see why you think this would matter even if it were true.

Morton said:
I don't have faith in god. I'm not saying that our existence is proof of a god or gods I'm saying that god or gods can't be excluded. I don't have to "show you wrong" because you've only made statements that are to be accepted without question or proof. I.e. dogma. No use responding to it.
Click to expand...

Okay, what does not excluding them do for us? We also, by that logic, can't exclude that we are a parasitic growth on cosmic macaroni and cheese. But we shouldn't worry about thinks that we can't exclude. We should worry about things that there is reason to suspect in the first place. There's no evidence of the cosmic macaroni and cheese. There's no evidence of any particular religion's gods, either.
 
Paschendale said:
That's really less to do with objections to specific religious doctrine and more that the American brands of Protestantism are the local offenders. That is the religion that is harming people locally. Movements against the harm cause by religion in Saudi Arabia focuses on Islam. Movements in Israel focus on Judaism. People tend to focus on problems in their own back yards.

I'm confused. How can the default position of something existing be both that it does and doesn't? That a claim is false is not a positive assertion. Atheists claim that theists don't have any proof. We don't require anyone to prove that dinosaurs are all dead, or that hobbits aren't real. Why would you contend that one god of the thousands that human beings have worshiped is any different? Do those who think that Amaterasu isn't real (which I presume includes you) need to find proof of that, as well?

None of which are evidence of any deities or magic. No one is arguing that Pilate wasn't a real figure. No one is arguing that Jewish culture did not exist in the general times and places in the bible. No one is arguing that Romans didn't crucify people, including thieves and political dissidents. What archaeological find will supposedly prove the existence of an afterlife?

If we have the earliest version of the Iliad, should we start making sacrifices to Athena? I don't really see why you think this would matter even if it were true.

Okay, what does not excluding them do for us? We also, by that logic, can't exclude that we are a parasitic growth on cosmic macaroni and cheese. But we shouldn't worry about thinks that we can't exclude. We should worry about things that there is reason to suspect in the first place. There's no evidence of the cosmic macaroni and cheese. There's no evidence of any particular religion's gods, either.
Click to expand...

Pasch...

Great responses to all...
 
Paschendale said:
None of which are evidence of any deities or magic. No one is arguing that Pilate wasn't a real figure. No one is arguing that Jewish culture did not exist in the general times and places in the bible. No one is arguing that Romans didn't crucify people, including thieves and political dissidents. What archaeological find will supposedly prove the existence of an afterlife?
Click to expand...

The point being that the Gospel writers were very careful in what they wrote about. The archaeological confirmations in the Gospels add credence that they weren't full of nonsense like some skeptics around here like to argue. That adds credibility to their work.

Paschendale said:
If we have the earliest version of the Iliad, should we start making sacrifices to Athena? I don't really see why you think this would matter even if it were true.
Click to expand...

The longer time goes on the more chance there arguably is for textual corruption. You might want to review this article to see how the Iliad measures up to the Gospels.

Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability|Accuracy of the New Testament | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Paschendale said:
There's no evidence of any particular religion's gods, either.
Click to expand...

The fulfilled Messianic prophecies say you're mistaken about that.
 
Last edited:
Logicman said:
The point being that the Gospel writers were very careful in what they wrote about. The archaeological confirmations in the Gospels add credence that they weren't full of nonsense like some skeptics around here like to argue. That adds credibility to their work.
Click to expand...

No moreso than the story of the headless horseman being correct about events around the revolution gives credence to the undead.

The longer time goes on the more chance there arguably is for textual corruption. You might want to review this article to see how the Iliad measures up to the Gospels.
Click to expand...

And yet no one is disputing that the Trojan War happened. That there was an guy named Achilles? Who cares. A Paris and a Helen? Maybe. That anyone involved was a demigod with divine powers? Oh yeah, we dispute that.

The fulfilled Messianic prophecies say you're mistaken about that.
Click to expand...

Like what? You keep going on about them, but never have any examples other than "this recently translated version of the old testament has a reference that we think is about Jesus". If there were explicit descriptions of how to build air planes, the layout of Seoul, or mentioned Neil Armstrong, then you would have a leg to stand on. But that's not what these supposed prophecies are. They're only meaningful if the magic parts of the bible were already true. You're back to the circular logic.
 
We shouldn't worry about any of it. Thats my overarching argument. We could exist because of a scientific experiment in the garage of some alien teenager. Anti-theist arguments are mostly anthropomorphic arguments based on the arrogant notion that we can know. We simply can't.


Paschendale said:
Okay, what does not excluding them do for us? We also, by that logic, can't exclude that we are a parasitic growth on cosmic macaroni and cheese. But we shouldn't worry about thinks that we can't exclude. We should worry about things that there is reason to suspect in the first place. There's no evidence of the cosmic macaroni and cheese. There's no evidence of any particular religion's gods, either.
Click to expand...
 
Paschendale said:
No moreso than the story of the headless horseman being correct about events around the revolution gives credence to the undead.

And yet no one is disputing that the Trojan War happened. That there was an guy named Achilles? Who cares. A Paris and a Helen? Maybe. That anyone involved was a demigod with divine powers? Oh yeah, we dispute that.

Like what? You keep going on about them, but never have any examples other than "this recently translated version of the old testament has a reference that we think is about Jesus". If there were explicit descriptions of how to build air planes, the layout of Seoul, or mentioned Neil Armstrong, then you would have a leg to stand on. But that's not what these supposed prophecies are. They're only meaningful if the magic parts of the bible were already true. You're back to the circular logic.
Click to expand...

Listen, your deal is denying anything that resembles the Christian Messiah. That's typical of pundits of Judaism (not that I'm bashing Judaism, which in many ways I find very credible). But just constantly being in denial isn't working for you, at least with me. Because you're denying what the Jews and God began that finds its origins in the Torah and the Tanakh.

There are fulfilled Messianic prophecies, in Matthew and elsewhere. It's also documented that there were Messianic expectations in 1st century Judea. And, the New Testament has better overall manuscript evidence than virtually any other work of antiquity.

It's also quite curious that in passages that ancient Jewish rabbis considered Messianic, they almost always look one heck of a lot like Jesus Christ (Isaiah 53 and Jeremiah 23:5-6 as examples).

So, deny all you want but that doesn't make it go away.
 
Morton said:
We shouldn't worry about any of it. Thats my overarching argument. We could exist because of a scientific experiment in the garage of some alien teenager. Anti-theist arguments are mostly anthropomorphic arguments based on the arrogant notion that we can know. We simply can't.
Click to expand...

How exactly do you know what we can and cannot know? That's some awfully cosmic knowledge you have there.

Logicman said:
Listen, your deal is denying anything that resembles the Christian Messiah. That's typical of pundits of Judaism (not that I'm bashing Judaism, which in many ways I find very credible). But just constantly being in denial isn't working for you, at least with me. Because you're denying what the Jews and God began that finds its origins in the Torah and the Tanakh.
Click to expand...

You in fact are bashing Jews. But that's okay, they run Hollywood and the media and are so oppressive of your Protestant majority.

There are fulfilled Messianic prophecies, in Matthew and elsewhere. It's also documented that there were Messianic expectations in 1st century Judea. And, the New Testament has better overall manuscript evidence than virtually any other work of antiquity.

It's also quite curious that in passages that ancient Jewish rabbis considered Messianic, they almost always look one heck of a lot like Jesus Christ (Isaiah 53 and Jeremiah 23:5-6 as examples).
Click to expand...

Why does a story written based on old testament ideas resemble those ideas? Gee, I wonder... It's like you're surprised that there are events in Return of the Jedi that look to be answering questions posed in Star Wars. Devout Jews who believed in these ideas who told a retold a story, and embellished it each time to match their expectations. That's what happened. It happens all the time. That's not a prophecy. That's just writing chapter 20 based on what's written in chapter 4.
 
Paschendale said:
I'm confused. How can the default position of something existing be both that it does and doesn't? That a claim is false is not a positive assertion. Atheists claim that theists don't have any proof. We don't require anyone to prove that dinosaurs are all dead, or that hobbits aren't real. Why would you contend that one god of the thousands that human beings have worshiped is any different? Do those who think that Amaterasu isn't real (which I presume includes you) need to find proof of that, as well?
Click to expand...

I will try to explain again. I don't see how it can be construed that I say that the default position is 2 things. I say nothing about a claim being false, but rather a positive claim that the proposition is false.

The proposition is : Do gods exist?
Either the proposition is true or it is false. That is just simple logic.
True or false are 2 prongs of the argument.

Theists make a positive claim that the proposition is TRUE. Theists believe that a god exists.
Anti-theists make a positive claim that the proposition is FALSE. Anti-theists believe that gods do not exist.
Both these claims require substantiation if they are to believed. In fact, any claim must have substantiation before it is believed.

If theists can not prove their claim about the proposition being true, does not magically make the proposition false?
Conversely, if the anti-theists can not prove their claim about the proposition being false magically make the proposition true?
These are stances that both theists and anti-theists are making about each other which are patently absurd. Especially since neither party seems capable of proving their claims which would indicate BOTH claims are true.

Of the two positions, theists have it easier because all they need to do is prove one god exists for their claim about the proposition to be true. Anti-theists would need to prove every god throughout human history does not exist for their claim about the proposition to be proven true.

Where do atheists fit into all of this?

An atheist, like an anti-theist, does not believe the theistic claims but an atheist does not necessarily believe the anti-theistic claims regarding the proposition either. Is it really important to investigate the atheist belief regarding the anti-theist claim that the proposition is false? No it is not. An atheist is really only concerned with the theistic claim that the proposition is true. An atheist rejects the evidence provided by theists in their attempt to support their claim that the proposition is true and thus is not required to believe the theistic claims.

The very important difference between atheists and anti-theists is that an atheist has not made a claim that must be defended. The only thing an atheist has done is not to believe evidence.
 
RogueWarrior said:
Anti-theists make a positive claim that the proposition is FALSE. Anti-theists believe that gods do not exist.
Click to expand...

That's not a positive claim. That's the null position of the positive claim that gods exist. It's not a positive claim that the Hunger Games aren't real. It's not a positive claim that Starcraft isn't real. False is the default to any proposition. Only with evidence can a proposition be considered true.
 
Paschendale said:
You in fact are bashing Jews. But that's okay, they run Hollywood and the media and are so oppressive of your Protestant majority.
Click to expand...

Disagreeing with a Jew is not bashing Jews. I support the nation of Israel and it's people.

Paschendale said:
Why does a story written based on old testament ideas resemble those ideas? Gee, I wonder... Devout Jews who believed in these ideas who told a retold a story, and embellished it each time to match their expectations.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Where's your evidence the Messianic prophecies in, say, Matthew, were embellished time and again?
 
Paschendale said:
That's not a positive claim. That's the null position of the positive claim that gods exist. It's not a positive claim that the Hunger Games aren't real. It's not a positive claim that Starcraft isn't real. False is the default to any proposition. Only with evidence can a proposition be considered true.
Click to expand...

No. You are incorrect. You are mixing up the terms. There are 2 competing claims regarding the proposition. To say that one of the claims is the default is silly.
The null position of the positive claim that gods exists (theism) is atheism, that is correct. But to say that the claim that gods do not exist does not require proof is absurd.
What is the null position of the claim that gods do not exist?


Try this one

Is there an odd or even number of blades of grass in your backyard?
Group T claims there are an odd number of blades.
Group antT claims there are an even number of blades.

According to what you have written, either the odd or even position is the default position which is wrong. The null position is 'I don't know'. You don't believe either claim until one of them is proven. Just because Group T can't prove their claim that the number is odd, does not automatically mean that Group antT's claim that the number is even is true. Until one of the groups demonstrates the actual number to be odd/even, there is no justification to believe either claim.
 
Last edited:
I know what I don't know and don't presume to know what I can't know.



Paschendale said:
How exactly do you know what we can and cannot know? That's some awfully cosmic knowledge you have there.
Click to expand...
 
The Zerg are real.

Paschendale said:
That's not a positive claim. That's the null position of the positive claim that gods exist. It's not a positive claim that the Hunger Games aren't real. It's not a positive claim that Starcraft isn't real. False is the default to any proposition. Only with evidence can a proposition be considered true.
Click to expand...
 
RogueWarrior said:
No. You are incorrect. You are mixing up the terms. There are 2 competing claims regarding the proposition. To say that one of the claims is the default is silly.
The null position of the positive claim that gods exists (theism) is atheism, that is correct. But to say that the claim that gods do not exist does not require proof is absurd.
What is the null position of the claim that gods do not exist?


Try this one

Is there an odd or even number of blades of grass in your backyard?
Group T claims there are an odd number of blades.
Group antT claims there are an even number of blades.

According to what you have written, either the odd or even position is the default position which is wrong. The null position is 'I don't know'. You don't believe either claim until one of them is proven. Just because Group T can't prove their claim that the number is odd, does not automatically mean that Group antT's claim that the number is even is true. Until one of the groups demonstrates the actual number to be odd/even, there is no justification to believe either claim.
Click to expand...

Unlike the number of blades of grass being even or odd, there is not an equal chance of the existence of any given god vs its nonexistence. An abstract kind of god, that does nothing and cannot be observed, there's even odds of that. The moment you start adding qualifiers, like specific actions, interventions, or communication of ideas, the odds veer substantially towards nonexistence. Because there is absolutely no evidence for these gods. At all. You're engaging in a balance fallacy, assuming that just because we're discussing a binary question, that they are equally likely.

If, instead, T group is insisting that the number of blades of grass is a multiple of 31, and the other group is saying that it almost certainly isn't and there's no reason to conclude that it is, the latter is not making a positive claim. And given the enormity of the claims about spirituality and gods, we're talking T group arguing that the blades of grass are a multiple of 4453469872347987609873227683, or some other number so huge that there's no reason to consider it a reasonable claim. Your anti T group is saying "that's ridiculous".

Don't give in to the fallacy.

Morton said:
I know what I don't know and don't presume to know what I can't know.
Click to expand...

So how do you know what you can't know?
 
The only thing that I know is that I know nothing.
 
Paschendale said:
Unlike the number of blades of grass being even or odd, there is not an equal chance of the existence of any given god vs its nonexistence. An abstract kind of god, that does nothing and cannot be observed, there's even odds of that. The moment you start adding qualifiers, like specific actions, interventions, or communication of ideas, the odds veer substantially towards nonexistence. Because there is absolutely no evidence for these gods. At all. You're engaging in a balance fallacy, assuming that just because we're discussing a binary question, that they are equally likely.

If, instead, T group is insisting that the number of blades of grass is a multiple of 31, and the other group is saying that it almost certainly isn't and there's no reason to conclude that it is, the latter is not making a positive claim. And given the enormity of the claims about spirituality and gods, we're talking T group arguing that the blades of grass are a multiple of 4453469872347987609873227683, or some other number so huge that there's no reason to consider it a reasonable claim. Your anti T group is saying "that's ridiculous".

Don't give in to the fallacy.
Click to expand...

You missed the point again. It is not about what the probabilities are. 50/50 or 99.99/0.01. They are irrelevant.

There is only 2 possible outcomes from the proposition.
Either it is true that gods exist.
OR
it is true that gods do not exist.

Both are truth claims regarding the possible outcomes.

Theists assert that gods exist. There is no reason to believe any gods exist until there is sufficient, credible falsifiable evidence to promote that belief. This the null position regarding theistic claims. This is the stance of atheists. Atheists do not believe the theistic claims and have no requirement to prove their disbelief.

Anti-theists assert that gods do not exist. There is no reason to believe gods do not exist until there is sufficient, credible falsifiable evidence to promote that belief. I do not know what word would describe the people who do not believe anti-theistic claims. A-anti-theist? Anyway, I won't go into the anti-theistic claim at all because it is a truth claim that requires proof. Instead of wasting time trying to prove that any god in particular does not exist (easy for some definitions of god) or gods generally (eek thousands to disprove), we just need to have theists think about their own claims and the reasons for them.

The justice system:
A person accused of a crime is either guilty or innocent of that crime. These are the 2 possibilities. They may or may not be of equal probability however that is irrelevant.
The justice system does not judge if you are innocent (thank you to whom it may concern), it judges whether you are guilty. (Stop and frisk and anal probes not withstanding)
The prosecution asserts the person is guilty and provides all sorts of evidence to bolster its case.
The jury analyses the evidence and decides whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof.
After deliberation, the jury decides between guilty or not guilty.
The jury does not decide about whether the person is innocent even if in fact he might be.

An atheist has found, after deliberation, that the theistic claims have not met their burden of proof and so the gods are not guilty of existing. An atheist does not care about the anti-theistic claims even though they have, depending on the definition of god, a high likelihood of being true.

In the justice system would you rather have the burden of proof on the prosecution and have the jury decide between guilty and not guilty? Or have the burden of proof on the defense and have the jury decide between innocent and not innocent? (you had better have airtight alibis!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom