Atheism and the Celestial Teapot!

[Gordon]

The truth (or otherwise) of a statement can be established in the affirmative, or disproved by showing that something that contradicts it is true.

Wrong: you've been told this before - if a statement is fallacious it can just be dismissed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I can't possibly address all SotS's fevered ratiocination, but one point that he made on page one must be answered. The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim; thus it is incumbent on theists to defend their belief, otherwise atheism wins by default. Occam's razor.

I think the problem here is with the definition of positive claim. For example Donald Trump isn't in the room is equally as ''positive a declaration'' as Donald Trump is in the room''.

Atheism is never the default since God can always be assigned a universally creative role. Sagan knew it, the Deists knew it it is only the axe grinding atheist linguistic string orchestra, who made linguistic fiddling popular, who seemed to forget it. 

[Maeght]

Atheism is never the default since God can always be assigned a universally creative role.

What's that got to do with it?

Sagan knew it, the Deists knew it it is only the axe grinding atheist linguistic string orchestra, who made linguistic fiddling popular, who seemed to forget it.

If people are born without a belief in God or gods then atheism is the default position surely. Are you defining atheism as some positve claim here (again)?

[Walter]

Which is what I said in my very first post on Page 1:

The truth (or otherwise) of a statement can be established in the affirmative, or disproved by showing that something that contradicts it is true.

you seem very confused to me. Try again and make it simple.
thank you

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

Wrong: you've been told this before - if a statement is fallacious it can just be dismissed.

Just to clarify, the statement is what’s produced by the argument(s). It’s arguments that are either fallacious or sound, and it’s the fallacious arguments that can be dismissed. The statements that fall out of fallacious arguments could still be true though just as a matter of dumb luck.

Thus “God is” could still be true (leaving aside for now the definitional problems with “God”) but none of the panoply of bad arguments theists often rely on demonstrate "God". 

[Walter]

errmm
had to read that a few times but got there in the end .
well said, I think!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What's that got to do with it?

If people are born without a belief in God or gods then atheism is the default position surely. Are you defining atheism as some positve claim here (again)?

That's a big if which betrays an uneducated ignorance of the claims of religion which talk about things like ''experiencing the presence'' and the ''fellowship'' and other experiences not dependent on any linguistic framework.

Yes one has to put atheism as a positive claim unless there is some qualification to atheism such as the much pushed pseudo-position of ''Agnostic Atheism'' AKA having one's cake and eat it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Walter - welcome to this mb.

errmm
had to read that a few times but got there in the end .
well said, I think!

Try this:

"To ensure that I had egg and chips for tea last night I walked all the way home without once treading on a crack in the pavement.

When I got home, Mum had cooked me egg and chips.

Therefore avoiding the cracks in the pavements causes me to have egg and chips for tea."

The argument (crack avoiding being causal of egg and chips for tea) is clearly fallacious, but it's still a fact that I had egg and chips for tea. Thus while falsifying the arguments theists attempt for "God" (the NPF, reification, personal incredulity etc etc) renders them irrelevant, it cannot eliminate at least the possibility of "God" however remote that possibility might be.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

AKA having one's cake and eat it.

What else would you do with a cake?

[wigginhall]

That's a big if which betrays an uneducated ignorance of the claims of religion which talk about things like ''experiencing the presence'' and the ''fellowship'' and other experiences not dependent on any linguistic framework.

Yes one has to put atheism as a positive claim unless there is some qualification to atheism such as the much pushed pseudo-position of ''Agnostic Atheism'' AKA having one's cake and eat it.

Not sure why that is a pseudo-position.  It distinguishes knowledge from belief, hence agnostic, (someone doesn't actually know if there is a God or not), but atheist (lacking a belief in God).   

Just seems precise to me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What else would you do with a cake?

Shove it up one's arse?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not sure why that is a pseudo-position.  It distinguishes knowledge from belief, hence agnostic, (someone doesn't actually know if there is a God or not), but atheist (lacking a belief in God).   

Just seems precise to me.

If what you say is true then there are none on this forum even though we have some who claim to be as I seem to recollect.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Not sure why that is a pseudo-position.

It isn't.

Now you'll have to excuse me - I'm planning to "experience the presence" of Colin, the grand panjandrum of the leprechauns later in "fellowship" with my co-believers and I really must pick out something suitable to wear for the occasion. Kitten heels maybe?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wiggs,

It isn't.

Now you'll have to excuse me - I'm planning to "experience the presence" of Colin,

That'll involve cake no doubt.

[Walter]

Blue, I love egg and chips and I always avoid the cracks, well, not all cracks.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wiggs,

It isn't.

It's a faith of course along the lines of ''I don't know there is or isn't a God but I commit myself to acting as if there wasn't.''

[bluehillside Retd.]

Walter,

Blue, I love egg and chips and I always avoid the cracks, well, not all cracks.

Steady on old son! Besides, Vlad is the Viceroy of Vulgar around here (and the Mogul of Mendacity too by the way) so you'd have big shoes to fill in that department.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Walter,

Steady on old son! Besides, Vlad is the Viceroy of Vulgar around here (and the Mogul of Mendacity too by the way) so you'd have big shoes to fill in that department.

That's rich coming from our Royal 'Roule'..er.

[Gordon]

Gordon,

Just to clarify, the statement is what’s produced by the argument(s). It’s arguments that are either fallacious or sound, and it’s the fallacious arguments that can be dismissed. The statements that fall out of fallacious arguments could still be true though just as a matter of dumb luck.

Thus “God is” could still be true (leaving aside for now the definitional problems with “God”) but none of the panoply of bad arguments theists often rely on demonstrate "God".

True: my excuse is I'd come from direct from Sword's 'lemon' argument on another thread, so my response here was perhaps more briefly bitter that it should have been. 

[Walter]

Walter,

Steady on old son! Besides, Vlad is the Viceroy of Vulgar around here (and the Mogul of Mendacity too by the way) so you'd have big shoes to fill in that department.

oops. I stand corrected, as the man said in his surgical boots.

[Maeght]

It's a faith of course along the lines of ''I don't know there is or isn't a God but I commit myself to acting as if there wasn't.''

How do you act as if there wasn't?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

How do you act as if there wasn't?

Less genuflecting.

Yeah, definitely less genuflecting.

Also, you'll probably be less judgmental about people who are "other" too. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you act as if there wasn't?

Er, contribute to one particular faction on a forum like this?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maeght,

Less genuflecting.

Yeah, definitely less genuflecting.

Also, you'll probably be less judgmental about people who are "other" too.

I never genuflect. Antitheists are particularly judgmental......it must be their moral irrealism.

[Walter]

I never genuflect. Antitheists are particularly judgmental......it must be their moral irrealism.

Hey, I will judge whoever I like, in fact theres a bloke coming round taking names