Does antitheism exist?

[Outrider]

I don't think that is the definition of a fringe.

It's a definition, it seems to fit in this instance.  Suitable and sufficient, as they say in my industry.

Particularly the hat bit.

It was between the hat and the dresses, but the hats seem to be more consistent.

So God is imaginary I'd like to see your workings on that.

Easy.  You say 'God'. I say 'where?'.  You say 'Oh, you can't detect it, but it's there.'  I say 'so how can you demonstrate that it's not just a figment of your imagination if it's undetectable' and you then try to derail the conversation by making up allegations about antitheists trying to marginalise religion by removing their structural privileges.

We need take no advice or lectures on the real world from regular posters on this forum.

Well then you need to find someone, because you religionistas have some absolute crazies out there.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

We need take no advice or lectures on the real world from regular posters on this forum.

Who is we?

And it is a bit rich talking about the real world when you spend half your time trying to defend something (god) for which there is no real-world evidence of its existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who is we?

And it is a bit rich talking about the real world when you spend half your time trying to defend something (god) for which there is no real-world evidence of its existence.

And how you can claim that depends on your definition of real world and whether that definition can be supported by the definition of the real world.

[ProfessorDavey]

And how you can claim that depends on your definition of real world and whether that definition can be supported by the definition of the real world.

Typical definition of real:

'being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary'

Good luck with demonstrating that your purported god has objective existence.

[ProfessorDavey]

We need take no advice or lectures on the real world from regular posters on this forum.

I ask again: Who is we?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's a definition, it seems to fit in this instance.  Suitable and sufficient, as they say in my industry.

It was between the hat and the dresses, but the hats seem to be more consistent.

Easy.  You say 'God'. I say 'where?'.  You say 'Oh, you can't detect it, but it's there.'  I say 'so how can you demonstrate that it's not just a figment of your imagination if it's undetectable' and you then try to derail the conversation by making up allegations about antitheists trying to marginalise religion by removing their structural privileges.

Well then you need to find someone, because you religionistas have some absolute crazies out there.

O.

Oh no you are claiming it IS imaginary. It's not up to me to demonstrate it isn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Typical definition of real:

'being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary'

Good luck with demonstrating that your purported god has objective existence.

Good luck with proving imaginary.

[ProfessorDavey]

Good luck with proving imaginary.

I don't need to - the onus is on you.

Unless you can demonstrate that your purported god has objective existence then it fails to meet the definition for being real. Good luck with providing your purported god has objective existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't need to - the onus is on you.

Unless you can demonstrate that your purported god has objective existence then it fails to meet the definition for being real. Good luck with providing your purported god has objective existence.

I was just concerned you believed God was imaginary. It seems you don't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't need to - the onus is on you.

Unless you can demonstrate that your purported god has objective existence then it fails to meet the definition for being real. Good luck with providing your purported god has objective existence.

I dont think my failure to demonstrate objective existence of anything has the consequence of deciding whether or not something is real or objectively real does it.

Secondly why is the unreality of God the default position?

[Stranger]

I dont think my failure to demonstrate objective existence of anything has the consequence of deciding whether or not something is real or objectively real does it.

It has the consequence that you have failed to demonstrate its reality, so it's just a baseless claim.

Secondly why is the unreality of God the default position?

For the same reasons that have been explained to you multiple times - its called the burden of proof. The alternative is that anybody could make any unfalsifiable claim and it would be up to other people to disprove them, which is impossible if they are unfalsifiable, so we'd all be left having to believe endless, often mutually contradictory and fantastical, claims, which is a reasonable definition of being delusional.

What's more, since "God" refers to a whole host of different concepts, some of which are mutually exclusive, we'd have to do that even if you could argue "God" was a special case, which you've never managed to do.

[ProfessorDavey]

I dont think my failure to demonstrate objective existence of anything has the consequence of deciding whether or not something is real or objectively real does it.

Which is why I am both atheist (I do not believe that god exists) and also agnostic (I do not know that god does not exist).

[ProfessorDavey]

I was just concerned you believed God was imaginary. It seems you don't.

Surely it should come as no surprise to you that as I don't believe that god exists that I also don't believe that god is real.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It has the consequence that you have failed to demonstrate its reality, so it's just a baseless claim.

For the same reasons that have been explained to you multiple times - its called the burden of proof. The alternative is that anybody could make any unfalsifiable claim and it would be up to other people to disprove them, which is impossible if they are unfalsifiable, so we'd all be left having to believe endless, often mutually contradictory and fantastical, claims, which is a reasonable definition of being delusional.

What's more, since "God" refers to a whole host of different concepts, some of which are mutually exclusive, we'd have to do that even if you could argue "God" was a special case, which you've never managed to do.

I understand Burden of proof. It is really on anybody who makes a positive assertion. Outrider hasn't been back to me after positively asserting that God IS an imaginary friend.


I am talking about the default position and here you have been very clear on what you think that is. That God is not real because I cannot satisfy your definition of demonstration. But why and on what grounds are you saying that is the default position?

In law the burden of proof needs to be established case by case as far as I understand.

The default position I think is different from the burden of proof but something that needs to be agreed. What then are your grounds for holding God as not real as the default position so I can either agree with them or otherwise?

   

[ProfessorDavey]

I understand Burden of proof. It is really on anybody who makes a positive assertion. Outrider hasn't been back to me after positively asserting that God IS an imaginary friend.


I am talking about the default position and here you have been very clear on what you think that is. That God is not real because I cannot satisfy your definition of demonstration. But why and on what grounds are you saying that is the default position?

In law the burden of proof needs to be established case by case as far as I understand.

The default position I think is different from the burden of proof but something that needs to be agreed. What then are your grounds for holding God as not real as the default position so I can either agree with them or otherwise?

   

I ask yet again Vlad: Who is we?

You don't seem to have answered.

[Stranger]

I am talking about the default position and here you have been very clear on what you think that is. That God is not real because I cannot satisfy your definition of demonstration. But why and on what grounds are you saying that is the default position?

In law the burden of proof needs to be established case by case as far as I understand.

The default position I think is different from the burden of proof but something that needs to be agreed. What then are your grounds for holding God as not real so I can either agree with them or otherwise?

The burden of proof in philosophy is about the person making the claim. In the case where somebody is saying that something is objectively real, then of course the default position is to not accept it without sufficient reason being given to accept it. The alternative (as I already pointed out) would be absurd because we'd have to take any such claim equally seriously (including mutually exclusive ones).

It's the same in science. If I propose the existence of some, as yet undetected, particle it's not up to anybody else to provide a reason not to take it seriously, it's up to me to provide my reasoning. Nobody would have gone to the trouble of looking for the Higgs boson unless there were good theoretical reasons to take the idea seriously.

In the case of "God" it's even more absurd because there are multiple (mutually exclusive) ideas of what the term refers to, therefore at least most of them must be false.

[Nearly Sane]

I ask yet again Vlad: Who is we?

You don't seem to have answered.

Vlad doesn't seem to have used 'we' here. I know he did previously but your comment looks out of place here.

[ProfessorDavey]

Vlad doesn't seem to have used 'we' here. I know he did previously but your comment looks out of place here.

He did in reply 242 and I asked him several teams who he means by we. In typical Vlad fashion he has failed to answer a very simple question.

[ProfessorDavey]

We need take no advice or lectures on the real world from regular posters on this forum.

Once again Vlad - who do you mean by we?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The burden of proof in philosophy is about the person making the claim. In the case where somebody is saying that something is objectively real, then of course the default position is to not accept it without sufficient reason being given to accept it.

yes. You are going through the drill but holding back on the nub of the affair. What sufficient reason is lacking here? It seems that the lack of fulfilment of physical and empirical properties means that there is ''insufficient reason''. And that is ''true'' in empiricism and physicalism. The trouble is that neither physicalism nor empiricism are established by empirical or physical means. So why then are you justifying those as the default?  You will be justifying your beliefs to yourself as well while you are at it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Once again Vlad - who do you mean by we?

Me and thems what's like me.

[Nearly Sane]

Me and thems what's like me.

Damn few and they're all dead

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Damn few and they're all dead

Well said. Don't quite get it yet....but well said.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Rabby Burns. It sounded like something my father would have said and he was a big Burns fan.

I am too......Alan Burns that is.

[Stranger]

yes. You are going through the drill but holding back on the nub of the affair. What sufficient reason is lacking here?

Anything at all. Give me a definition of "God" (you're still ignoring that at least most of them must be false) and any objective reason at all to take its existence seriously.