Searching for GOD...

[Maeght]

sounds a bit iffy to me.How does lacking a belief in God differ from believing that God does not exist?

In that the former is not a positive claim whereas the latter is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#:~:text=This%20generates%20the%20following%20definition,the%20belief%20that%20God%20exists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In that the former is not a positive claim whereas the latter is.

If you are not convinced there is a god your position must be that there in't

[Nearly Sane]

If you are not convinced there is a god your position must be that there in't

define it

[Nearly Sane]

If you are not convinced there is a god your position must be that there in't

If I am not convinced there is a cure for cancer, your position is there that isn't.


 

[Stranger]

If you are not convinced there is a god your position must be that there in't

Are you really, not only that stupid but also totally incapable of reading and comprehending the many, many times this has been explained to you? I suspect not and you're just being a child.

Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a demiurgic entity or entities is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

Again: grow up.

[Outrider]

A bit of evidence of this mis in order here.

This would be the barely literate bit, right?

The answer is of course. No....you can’t Gish gallop on atext base forum where You can take your time to read what’s been written.

That's what makes it an analogy, it's not a perfect depiction, but it's the written equivalent.

If there is any fallacy of overwhelming it occurs where one poster is outnumbered by other posters.

It's not a fallacy, it's a technique. It's not in the number of posters, it's in the clarity of the arguments they make... or try to make.

That can’t be perpetrated by the theists here.....too few.

Ah, the persecution leitmotif... always good to pull out a classic.

And oh dear here you are as part of such an overwhelming.

Overwhelming... what? Overwhelming body of well-reasoned though delivered with a delicately poetic elegance, I presume, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

How ironic given the elimination of the principle of sufficient reason in arguments against the argument from contingency

That would be the 'principle of sufficient reason' that you don't seem to understand and the argument from contingency that keeps ending up as one version or another of special pleading, right?

In what way is either of those relevant to what I put? It's almost like...

...throw(ing) out as much barely literate tangential nonsense as you can, full of faulty analogies, misuses of terminology, vaguely worded assertions, and non-sequiturs, wrapped around your actual failed attempt at a point...

O.

[Maeght]

If you are not convinced there is a god your position must be that there in't

I'm not convinced X exists because I haven't been convinced by the evidence for X. Could X exist? Yes, so I can't say X doesn't exist. It may do, I'm just not convinced it does. Maybe there is evidence which would convince me that I just haven't seen for example.

[Maeght]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#:~:text=This%20generates%20the%20following%20definition,the%20belief%20that%20God%20exists.

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

'Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.'

There are of course different definitions of the word atheism and they have changed with time. Philosophy may define it in a different way to the way it is defined elsewhere, but everyone (virtually everyone I think) on here has said that they lack a belief in God rather than saying there is no God. So is it that you don't believe them? It might be easier to just say that if so.

[Outrider]

If you are not convinced there is a god your position must be that there in't

I'm not convinced that there are Russian spies operating inside Whitehall, but I'm not advocating that we should shut down our counter-intelligence services - if the subtleties of the difference between 'I'm not convinced' and 'I'm convinced that it's not' escape you, it's hardly surprising that you struggle to convey your point as effectively as you seem to think that you do.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

'Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.'

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/52477/how-widely-accepted-is-the-presumption-of-atheism-among-philosophers

[Maeght]

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/52477/how-widely-accepted-is-the-presumption-of-atheism-among-philosophers

I editted my earlier post to say

'There are of course different definitions of the word atheism and they have changed with time. Philosophy may define it in a different way to the way it is defined elsewhere, but everyone (virtually everyone I think) on here has said that they lack a belief in God rather than saying there is no God. So is it that you don't believe them? It might be easier to just say that if so.'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not convinced that there are Russian spies operating inside Whitehall, but I'm not advocating that we should shut down our counter-intelligence services - if the subtleties of the difference between 'I'm not convinced' and 'I'm convinced that it's not' escape you, it's hardly surprising that you struggle to convey your point as effectively as you seem to think that you do.

O.

Are you denying having a position? If not why are you then specially pleading that yours should be exempt from justification.

[Outrider]

Are you denying having a position?

Effectively, yes. You're making a claim of 'a god', and I'm pointing out that you haven't sufficiently made your case. On the issue of gods, therefore, I'm still waiting on a convincing case, so I take no position and continue as was.

If only there was a phrase *cough* agnostic atheism *cough* for that...

O.

[Maeght]

Are you denying having a position? If not why are you then specially pleading that yours should be exempt from justification.

A position on what though? Saying you aren't convinced by the evidence is taking a position on the evidence isn't it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I editted my earlier post to say

'There are of course different definitions of the word atheism and they have changed with time. Philosophy may define it in a different way to the way it is defined elsewhere, but everyone (virtually everyone I think) on here has said that they lack a belief in God rather than saying there is no God. So is it that you don't believe them? It might be easier to just say that if so.'

I wonder if some atheists aren't using this as cover for a more positive atheism, yes from which they can then take a positive firing position Whether it's a kings new clothes situation I'm agnostic about that.

This would then involve making the positive assertion that there are no good arguments for God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A position on what though? Saying you aren't convinced by the evidence is taking a position on the evidence isn't it?

Yes...it is a positive claim that therefore needs justifying.

The definition of atheism dates from 1976 from a paper called The presumption of Atheism. In it there is a specific demand that theists produce empirical evidence for God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Effectively, yes. You're making a claim of 'a god', and I'm pointing out that you haven't sufficiently made your case. On the issue of gods, therefore, I'm still waiting on a convincing case, so I take no position and continue as was.

If only there was a phrase *cough* agnostic atheism *cough* for that...

O.

OK what do you understand by the term the presumption of atheism?

[Maeght]

Yes...it is a positive claim that therefore needs justifying.

The definition of atheism dates from 1976 from a paper called The presumption of Atheism. In it there is a specific demand that theists produce empirical evidence for God.

A positive claim about the evidence and people on here are constantly addressing why they find the evidence unconvincing.

You aren't talking to the authors of that paper so why not just address the position people on here have stated?

[Gordon]

Yes...it is a positive claim that therefore needs justifying.

The definition of atheism dates from 1976 from a paper called The presumption of Atheism. In it there is a specific demand that theists produce empirical evidence for God.

Then ignore it, or get on with producing the empirical evidence.

Of course a more nuanced approach would be for you to say that yours is a faith position and that, as such, you've feel no need to provide supporting empirical evidence. You should also stop misrepresenting the views of atheists, since your 'attack instead of defend' approach has failed, and it does you no credit anyway.

[Outrider]

OK what do you understand by the term the presumption of atheism?

The 'presumption of atheism' is the idea that, in a discussion about whether there is a god, the default position is that there isn't until such time as a claim has been made in favour. It's pitched by some theist philosophers (Flew, I believe?) that for special pleading reasons this should not be the default position despite it being the default position for everything else.

It's not a 'presumption of atheism' as a premise, it's a presumption that until a case has been proven the 'null hypothesis' remains, and in this instance that null hypothesis is functionally atheism. It's no more a 'presumptive' position than the 'presumption' that morality is subjective until and unless some source of absolute morality can be established, for example.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The 'presumption of atheism' is the idea that, in a discussion about whether there is a god, the default position is that there isn't until such time as a claim has been made in favour. It's pitched by some theist philosophers (Flew, I believe?) that for special pleading reasons this should not be the default position despite it being the default position for everything else.

It's not a 'presumption of atheism' as a premise, it's a presumption that until a case has been proven the 'null hypothesis' remains, and in this instance that null hypothesis is functionally atheism. It's no more a 'presumptive' position than the 'presumption' that morality is subjective until and unless some source of absolute morality can be established, for example.

O.

And isn't the default position...there isn't a God indistinguishable from the claim there isn't a God and certainly distinguishable from there is no evidence for God one way or another which is what merely lacking belief in God entails?

[Outrider]

And isn't the default position...there isn't a God indistinguishable from the claim there isn't a God and certainly distinguishable from there is no evidence for God one way or another which is what merely lacking belief in God entails?

And we're back to illiteracy again.

I think there's the question 'is the position there isn't a god indistinguishable from there is no evidence for god one way or the other'. Yes, those are two very different positions. Neither of them are relevant here, though.

There is a world, and we're on it - or, at least, I'm on it, and I'm going to presume for the sake of argument here that you are too.

You then make a claim about that world, that it has something to do with a 'god'. We go back and forth about what you mean by this term, and have an approximation of a similar concept about what that is. I then expect you to be able to justify that claim that there is a god before I'll accept it.

The presumption here is not 'atheism' it's that 'you have to justify your claim or I can ignore it'. It's not that atheism any more than a-germism or a-materialism. Atheism is just a word we have for not accepting one category of propositions that's been coined because religion is so important to some people that they need to treat discussions around it differently to anything else. We don't feel the need to discuss if there's a presumption of a-fairyism, it's considered acceptable to adopt the stance that someone claiming fairies has to be justify the claim. Adragonism?

To pick a perhaps less outlandish example, ghosts. There are tales from all over the world of the spirits of the dead manifesting in one way or another, different classifications and types, different myths and legends from different cultures. Philosophically, though, if you adopt the stance that the claim of 'ghosts' hasn't been proven there is no call to question the 'presumption of aspirituality', that's a perfectly acceptable position to adopt. But with gods it's for some reason different, apparently?

No. it's exactly the same. You have a claim, and you've not made that claim adequately to convince me. I therefore remain unconvinced, and for cultural rather than philosophical reasons we have a name for people who remain unconvinced on that topic, where we don't for people who remain unconvinced on other topics.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And we're back to illiteracy again.

I think there's the question 'is the position there isn't a god indistinguishable from there is no evidence for god one way or the other'. Yes, those are two very different positions. Neither of them are relevant here, though.

There is a world, and we're on it - or, at least, I'm on it, and I'm going to presume for the sake of argument here that you are too.

You then make a claim about that world, that it has something to do with a 'god'. We go back and forth about what you mean by this term, and have an approximation of a similar concept about what that is. I then expect you to be able to justify that claim that there is a god before I'll accept it.

The presumption here is not 'atheism' it's that 'you have to justify your claim or I can ignore it'. It's not that atheism any more than a-germism or a-materialism. Atheism is just a word we have for not accepting one category of propositions that's been coined because religion is so important to some people that they need to treat discussions around it differently to anything else. We don't feel the need to discuss if there's a presumption of a-fairyism, it's considered acceptable to adopt the stance that someone claiming fairies has to be justify the claim. Adragonism?

To pick a perhaps less outlandish example, ghosts. There are tales from all over the world of the spirits of the dead manifesting in one way or another, different classifications and types, different myths and legends from different cultures. Philosophically, though, if you adopt the stance that the claim of 'ghosts' hasn't been proven there is no call to question the 'presumption of aspirituality', that's a perfectly acceptable position to adopt. But with gods it's for some reason different, apparently?

No. it's exactly the same. You have a claim, and you've not made that claim adequately to convince me. I therefore remain unconvinced, and for cultural rather than philosophical reasons we have a name for people who remain unconvinced on that topic, where we don't for people who remain unconvinced on other topics.

O.

I was wrong............it is possible to Gish Gallop on a text base forum. I’m afraid then this post will need a bit of unravelling but not now.

[Nearly Sane]

If you are not convinced there is a god your position must be that there in't

what is a god?