The Disingenuousness of "Weak" Atheism

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Just putting things in ex quotes is not documentation. You provided no serious sources. I used philosophical dictionaries and academic sources. If you used those for paper in grad school they would not be acceptable.

Disqualified

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Still waiting for some arguments for atheism. As far as your semantics.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I'm getting a lot of emotional objections and appeals to personal incredulity but so far no one has even attempted to address the central argument.

I would like to restate it so we can avoid going around in circles and a potential dictionary war. Here is the argument you need to address if you want to challenge me. It's in the OP but I will make it easy for you. The belief in question is "God exists"

Given any point of view, in this case “God exists”, there are only three possible positions. You can affirm it “God does exist”, you can deny it “God does not exist”, or you can withhold judgment “I don’t know.”

Let me challenge you to provide an alternative to these three possible positions. Now go back and read the OP.

There are 3 choices. God exists - God does not Exist - I don't know. The rest is a game you play to justify your unsupported belief that God does not exist. You have the same burden of proof as anyone else.

Belief in God is properly basic.

Atheists seem to think that their contention that they don't see enough evidence for God justifies their position that God does not exist. But absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence for absence. Should we expect to see more evidence for God than we than we do? The creation of the universe from nothing. The amazing fine tuning. The complexity of the cell. The origin of life. Fulfilled biblical prophecy. The evidence is overwhelming.

After all he entered into the material world as a man and changed the course of human history with his teaching, worked miracles and healed the sick in front of 1000s of witnesses, and then rose from the dead and appeared to over 500. And then made sure his disciples wrote it all down for our benefit. The evidence it abundant. God is available if you approach him in humility.

Dr Craig sums it up nicely.



Where is the evidence for atheism? There is just no good reason to believe atheism is true.

reply to post by eight bits

"I take no position about whether God exists" contradicts "There is no difference between belief in God and belief in Santa Claus." Since I can see that the speaker is fully committed to the latter statement, I can simply discard the former. Yes, speaker, you do have a position about whether God exists. The ordinary and usual English word for that view is atheism.

Well said and exactly my point. They want to have their cake and eat it to. They take a strong position and go around criticizing others yet when challenged they pull out the "I'm not making any claims, I just lack belief" canard.

I'm not so sure about this supposed separation of "knowledge" and "belief".

Someone earlier in this thread went through the various combinations of "a/gnostic" and "a/theistic", but they missed out a few, because including them would show how weird such a position is:

Where is the gnostic-atheist who knows that god/s exists, but does not believe?
Can a person logically say "God exists, but I do not believe God exists"?

Or the gnostic-theist who knows that god/s does not exist, but believes?
Or even the agnostic-theist, who does not know that god exists, yet believes anyway (I think most, if not all theists will say that god exists)?

So is the whole creation of this "gnosis-theism" hyphenation thing simply to be able to make up this one category out of all of them (agnostic-atheist) to make one group attempt to justify their definition of themselves (with all the other groups being irrelevant or illogical)?

The gnosis and the theism is necessarily connected. They are not compoundable, mutually exclusive states.



I think the problem here is people are confusing "gnosis" (knowledge of the existence of god) with "empirical, physical evidence". One doesn't need empirical, physical evidence to "know" god exists.

Atheists here are claiming "I do not know, but I do not believe".
What on earth does that even mean? As far as I see it, that statement does not make sense. If you do not know, then you do not know. If you do not know, then you NOTHING (not "believe" or "not believe"). The null position here (according to this theory) would be not knowing, it would not be a statement of non-existence.

reply to post by babloyi


Thank you for interjecting some clear thinking. It seems to me that all of this gnosis-hyphenation amounts to a lot of nonsense too. The big problem I have with it is that the focus of the terminology has classically never been about the psychological content of the person but rather their position on God. I think the last two paragraphs of the OP say it all. I really haven't seen any compelling challenges to the reasoning behind that. Given the proposition God exists there are only 3 real positions. That seems conclusive to me.

I really don't see any value in trading definitions from various sources. But classically all philosophical reference works define atheism as the position that God does not exist. Here is another case in point from scholarly source:

Atheism: (Gr. a, no; theos, god) Two uses of the term:

1. The belief that there is no God.
2. Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic."

The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term although widely current in the history of thought. -- V.F.

www.ditext.com...

Notice the former meaning is the literal one. I don't deny that people use the weak definitions but my point is in the title of the thread. I think it is disingenuous. It's a debating tactic that nonbelievers resort to so they do not have to support their view. I think it's intellectually weak, if you have a view you should be able to support it. Especially if you make it your business to attack and ridicule those with the opposing view. If you don't like my arguments about the definition challenge the last 2 paragraphs of the OP with logic and reason.

There is quite a bit of good philosophy being written about the idea the the theist is in his rights to simply presuppose God as a properly basic belief. God as the grounding fact of all of reality. I think a solid case can be made that the atheist must presuppose theistic values to criticize them. For instance, here is an argument from a presuppositional apologist which argues that atheism presupposes theism and then does fatal collateral damage to science and reason itself.

Science has been built up all along on the basis of this principle of the ‘uniformity of nature,’ and the principle is one which science itself has no means of demonstrating. No one could possibly prove its truth to an opponent who seriously disputed it. For all attempts to produce the ‘evidence’ for the ‘uniformity of nature’ themselves presuppose the very principle they are intended to prove.” Our argument as over against this would be that the existence of the God of Christian theism and the conception of his counsel as controlling all things in the universe is the only presupposition which can account for the uniformity of nature which the scientist needs. But the best and only possible proof for the existence of such a God is that his existence is required for the uniformity of nature and for the coherence of all things in the world. We cannot prove the existence of beams underneath a floor if by proof we mean that they must be ascertainable in the way that we can see the chairs and tables of the room. But the very idea of a floor as the support of tables and chairs requires the idea of beams that are underneath. But there would be no floor if no beams were underneath. Thus there is absolutely certain proof for the existence of God and the truth of Christian theism. Even non-Christians presuppose its truth while they verbally reject it. They need to presuppose the truth of Christian theism in order to account for their own accomplishments.

Cornelius Van Til and William Edgar, Christian Apologetics, 2nd ed. (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 2003).

I will be starting back to class tomorrow so I am going to up to my eyeballs in reading and work so I will not be able to spend much time replying here. The bottom line is I don't think atheists deserve to get the free ride they are claiming. When it comes down to it, if you have view, then you have belief and if you're intellectually honest you have the same burden of proof as anyone else. You can deny it, avoid it, ridicule it and I'm sure many will, but it's a cop out. There are positive arguments for atheism. Dawkins has a really bad one that ends with something like "Most likely God probably does not exist" in the God Delusion. ...at least he tried.

Great thread, it about time somebody called atheists out on there semantic dancing, here is an example from Madness

I'm going to simply say that I don't like the phrasing of the second part of that sentence

I love it when atheists disagree with a sourced definition of atheism, it makes the OP point even stronger.

The OP has spelled it out very simply, everything else is using semantics as a diversion from the basic three categories. This tactic is used to confuse and baffle those that do not know. It is a defense that has been used increasingly on the net, I have never meet a person face to face that has claimed these things.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Um...is that enough for you. I mean, just one data point would have gotten rid of your claim, but several should do a lot more.

um... "no"

I was looking for atheists attacking or denouncing anything other than Monotheism's God.

did you miss this part...

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
still waiting on the video of atheists saying anything at all about Hindus or Satanists, Taoist, Sikhs, Wicca,

why not go back to the actual topic the question was posed in and stop playing across topics where you are only seemingly trying to get a "WIN" just as your custom title states.

thank you for your attempt although it will not do for what I was asking for.

"any other theistic God(s) besides english speaking Christian's God, which is Monotheism's God, which includes Islam and Judaism.

I and others are still waiting for this, even though I believe it should go back to the original topic of origin, as to not derail this topic.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


did you also miss the point where I was talking to MrXYZ at the time about what I asked him to present in the Atheism's Missionaries topic ? you were there too remember ?

this is from page two of this topic, in which you actually chose to hit "reply to" instead of "quote" which is amazing in itself coming from you sir.

I am also waiting on video evidence that Atheists do not only attack the God of Christianity or Jesus, but you must have overlooked that too in favor of speculation ?

I see it took this long to find proof, proof that actually is not proof because Christianity's God is Monotheistic, that means our God is the same as Judaism's and Islam's.

yes "Weak" Atheism indeed

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Great thread, it about time somebody called atheists out on there semantic dancing, here is an example from Madness

I'm going to simply say that I don't like the phrasing of the second part of that sentence

I love it when atheists disagree with a sourced definition of atheism, it makes the OP point even stronger.

The OP has spelled it out very simply, everything else is using semantics as a diversion from the basic three categories. This tactic is used to confuse and baffle those that do not know. It is a defense that has been used increasingly on the net, I have never meet a person face to face that has claimed these things.

they can disagree all they want, they do have that right in my country anyway...

Atheists can disagree with sourced definitions, established by majority, but it still only makes it "fact" in their own minds. (which is a delusional minority)

I for one appreciate the knowledgeable "theists" here since I am quite new and have been being prayed upon endlessly since my arrival really.

if you simply try to not hold conversation with these conversionists, they claim a "WIN" that you were avoiding them, and they also lie like no others, this is another tactic.

for I was banned for posting "truth" to a lie, being it was a U2U, it was still the truth... then the whole rant topic itself disappeared.

just remember we are dealing with some seemingly professional charlatans here in this section.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I have to say, your agenda is that of a NWO puppet... and if you believe these comedy stint videos, in which especially Sam Harris is seemingly only trying to raise a laugh, then you are only being susceptible to an agenda which tries to pit us against ourselves.

Sam Harris... what a laugh ! he claims in his opening something about "we" atheists, yadda ya... and our "neighbors" the Christians...

it is he (atheism) which is the uninvited guest my friend, the guest who will not leave off your couch even after you stop filling the icebox with food for them to consume.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Atheism according to Princeton...

- the doctrine or belief that there is no God
- a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

The official definition of "atheism" makes it very clear that they don't just gang up on the Christian god. Now you asking for youtube videos even though the official dictionary definition proves you wrong is kinda sad. Has your brain degraded to the point where you can only take in youtube videos and completely ignore written sources...even ones as strong as dictionaries? Really sad

But since you seem to like youtube videos...here's one...just in case reading the dictionary is too hard

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I have to say, your agenda is that of a NWO puppet...

Logical fallacy: Poisoning the well.

and if you believe these comedy stint videos, in which especially Sam Harris is seemingly only trying to raise a laugh, then you are only being susceptible to an agenda which tries to pit us against ourselves.

Logical fallacy: moving back the goal posts.

I provided three instances of atheists criticizing Islam, two are US citizens. And they aren't 'comedy stint videos', they're legitimate critiques. Harris was trying to make his points entertaining, but that doesn't remove anything from their merit.

Sam Harris... what a laugh ! he claims in his opening something about "we" atheists, yadda ya... and our "neighbors" the Christians...

Um...because most people in the USA will have Christian neighbors.

it is he (atheism) which is the uninvited guest my friend, the guest who will not leave off your couch even after you stop filling the icebox with food for them to consume.

Logical fallacy: Ad hominem attack. You're not addressing the points, you're just throwing out baseless attacks.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I have to say, your agenda is that of a NWO puppet...

Ok, so now atheists belong to the NWO for spreading logic/rationality....suuuuuuuuuure

Of course you don't provide proof of your claim...as always...but who cares about facts, right?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/10ce271fc2a3.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

did you also miss the point where I was talking to MrXYZ at the time about what I asked him to present in the Atheism's Missionaries topic ? you were there too remember ?

this is from page two of this topic, in which you actually chose to hit "reply to" instead of "quote" which is amazing in itself coming from you sir.

I am also waiting on video evidence that Atheists do not only attack the God of Christianity or Jesus, but you must have overlooked that too in favor of speculation ?

I see it took this long to find proof,

Yes, because I've been sort of busy these last few weeks because I'm entering examination period. I have a lot of studying to do and projects to work on.

proof that actually is not proof because Christianity's God is Monotheistic, that means our God is the same as Judaism's and Islam's.

Logical fallacy: Moving back the goalposts.

If you had any knowledge of those three religions (or any of their sects) you'd realize that it is far from the same deity in both action and characterization.

yes "Weak" Atheism indeed

Do I need to even point out how this is a logical fallacy?

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Um...is that enough for you. I mean, just one data point would have gotten rid of your claim, but several should do a lot more.

um... "no"

I was looking for atheists attacking or denouncing anything other than Monotheism's God.

You said Christianity's deity, not monotheists deity. Don't go back into your old habits of trying to rewrite your own past statements.

did you miss this part...

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
still waiting on the video of atheists saying anything at all about Hindus or Satanists, Taoist, Sikhs, Wicca,

It's a bit hard to find atheists talking about Satanists...as Satanists don't do much. Hindus aren't very active in the English speaking world, which is the language most online videos are in. Taoists...could be described as atheistic spiritualists. Sikhs are a tiny group, and Wicca don't tend to bother anyone.

Atheists tend to be concerned with the religions that force themselves on others and the ones in proximity. Now, if I had some knowledge of Hindi and some knowledge of Indian atheists, I'd provide some videos.

Until then, I'll go through YouTube with this list of Indian atheists, I'm sure one of them has something to say about Hinduism.

why not go back to the actual topic the question was posed in and stop playing across topics where you are only seemingly trying to get a "WIN" just as your custom title states.

I did address the question that was posed. Just check my posts in thread.

thank you for your attempt although it will not do for what I was asking for.

"any other theistic God(s) besides english speaking Christian's God, which is Monotheism's God, which includes Islam and Judaism.

I and others are still waiting for this, even though I believe it should go back to the original topic of origin, as to not derail this topic.

Pushing back the goalposts. The Jewish God, the Christian God, and the Muslim God are entirely different. And that wasn't what you were asking for, you initially asked about the Christian one alone.

What about Democritus? He was an atheist before monotheism. Unfortunately, they didn't have any video cameras back then.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Great thread, it about time somebody called atheists out on there semantic dancing, here is an example from Madness

I'm going to simply say that I don't like the phrasing of the second part of that sentence

I love it when atheists disagree with a sourced definition of atheism, it makes the OP point even stronger.

Yes, a sourced definition from a random reference website. It's not like they were quoting Bertrand Russel or any philosopher of note. I did also provide counter-sources including Russel and other philosophers who would disagree. It is in fact the OP that is playing a semantics game, acting as if the only way to have a position on anything is with epistemological certainty.

The OP has spelled it out very simply,

And, as I've demonstrated, very stupidly. I've yet to meet an atheist of any amount of knowledge who describes his or herself in the manner which an apologetics book describes an atheist.

everything else is using semantics as a diversion from the basic three categories. This tactic is used to confuse and baffle those that do not know. It is a defense that has been used increasingly on the net, I have never meet a person face to face that has claimed these things.

Well, then you don't get out much. These aren't diversionary tactics. What you're actually doing here is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. You're attacking myself and other atheists rather than addressing arguments.

But we know you don't address arguments, so I'm not going to really bother with anything. You could have actually addressed my whole post.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Since you're not actually addressing my points, I'm going to restate them because I'm not playing a semantics game.

There are five positions

Agnostic atheist: I don't know, so I don't believe as the evidence is underwhelming.
Agnostic theist: I don't know, yet I choose to believe.
Agnostic undecided: I don't know, I'll decide later after some further inquiry or never.
Gnostic theist: I know, which is why I believe.
Gnostic Atheist: I know, which I why I don't believe.

And William Lane Craig? He's not really a good source for anything.

That's a series of videos that basically demolishes everything he has to say about anything. He's not a logician, he's not a philosopher, he's not an historian, he's not without short term memory loss, he's not a feminist, he's not a marriage counselor, he's not all sorts of things. He's gets so much wrong that I don't understand why anyone bothers with anything he has to say.

Anyway, I provided my position, you simply called it semantics without demonstrating why it's semantics. Your arguments are wholly invalid as you simply assume that all positions must be based in epistemological certainty. This is why you're not a philosopher of science, as science is a field in which epistemological certainty is not possible, yet it's the most productive force in humanity.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You are just adding adjectives to broaden the scope of categories which is fair, and I can agree can be done, as you explain so well.
But, all those adjectives do is expand on the basic three with more specifics, nothing more.
I notice atheists like to do this, whereas theists are content with the basic three categories.

More semantics, as neither are incorrect, just a different perspective.