The "Lack of Belief" Word Game

[makinbacon]

What is in question is "does a god exist". It is not the atheist's "burden of proof" to address this question, but the one who offers up the ideology. It isn't "playing word games". The person who makes the claim must provide evidence.

I disagree. To understand my disagreement, we need to begin with two principles.

Burden of Proof. A burden of proof is a social construct. It is an expectation placed upon an individual to support an assertion or perspective. The burden exists to varying degrees and only within certain social contexts.

Discussion. A discussion is an exchange of perspectives between two or more participants on an issue. Discussions are generally governed by the Gricean Maxims.

With these two principles in mind, let's see how they apply to your suggestion.

If atheism is a "mere lack of belief," then atheism has no perspective which can be presented. The atheist is unable to engage in discussion. The atheist has no burden of proof. Yet, we know atheists routinely engage in discussion on "does a god exist." What does this mean?

We know atheists have perspectives on the question "does a god exist." These perspectives can be varied. There are some who appeal to an empiricist epistemology pointing out the need for and lack of material evidence. There are some who appeal to logical positivism claiming "god talk" is meaningless. There are some who appeal to strong atheism claiming "gods do not exist." Thus, atheists are capable of entering into the discussion. They also have a burden of proof should they choose to engage in the discussion. What is the connection with "word games?"

The "word games" objection arises when atheists use the labels atheist and atheism to describe their "perspective." When others press the atheists to present and support their perspective on the issue, the atheists pound the table and declare "we only lack belief." They hide from a burden of proof through using the labels. Thus, they flout the maxim of manner and possibly the maxim of quality. By flouting these maxims, atheists are guilty of playing word games.

 

[Deavonreye]

I don't believe I have ever heard an atheist say, "we have evidence that god does not exist". If one does, they are being deceitful. In order for something to be tested, it must be ABLE to be testable.

Let's look at this another way. Do you believe that "Bigfoot" exists? How about faeries? Why or why not?

 

[Jake]

I disagree. To understand my disagreement, we need to begin with two principles.

Burden of Proof. A burden of proof is a social construct. It is an expectation placed upon an individual to support an assertion or perspective. The burden exists to varying degrees and only within certain social contexts.

Discussion. A discussion is an exchange of perspectives between two or more participants on an issue. Discussions are generally governed by the Gricean Maxims.

With these two principles in mind, let's see how they apply to your suggestion.

If atheism is a "mere lack of belief," then atheism has no perspective which can be presented. The atheist is unable to engage in discussion. The atheist has no burden of proof. Yet, we know atheists routinely engage in discussion on "does a god exist." What does this mean?

We know atheists have perspectives on the question "does a god exist." These perspectives can be varied. There are some who appeal to an empiricist epistemology pointing out the need for and lack of material evidence. There are some who appeal to logical positivism claiming "god talk" is meaningless. There are some who appeal to strong atheism claiming "gods do not exist." Thus, atheists are capable of entering into the discussion. They also have a burden of proof should they choose to engage in the discussion. What is the connection with "word games?"

The "word games" objection arises when atheists use the labels atheist and atheism to describe their "perspective." When others press the atheists to present and support their perspective on the issue, the atheists pound the table and declare "we only lack belief." They hide from a burden of proof through using the labels. Thus, they flout the maxim of manner and possibly the maxim of quality. By flouting these maxims, atheists are guilty of playing word games.

This is what atheist claim and use the word "belief" but in reality, it has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with rebellion. We are all given an inward knowledge that God exists and for this reason it is simply rebellion.

There is no such thing as an atheist, just rebellious people.

 

[Deavonreye]

This is what atheist claim and use the word "belief" but in reality, it has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with rebellion. We are all given an inward knowledge that God exists and for this reason it is simply rebellion.

There is no such thing as an atheist, just rebellious people.

Absolute and utter nonsense.

Show me how you are NOT openly "rebelling against Allah".

 

[Jake]

Absolutely, positively, and completely wrong.

Show me how you are NOT openly "rebelling against Allah".

No, what I have said is correct. You are rebelling.

I am not saying Christians do not rebel, of course we do, but we do not have to. It's a choice and you have made yours and I have made mine.

 

[makinbacon]

I don't believe I have ever heard an atheist say, "we have evidence that god does not exist". If one does, they are being deceitful. In order for something to be tested, it must be ABLE to be testable.

You have introduced the terms evidence and testability. I need to know precisely what you mean by these. These tend to be ambiguous and loaded when introduced into conversations of this nature.

Let's look at this another way. Do you believe that "Bigfoot" exists? How about faeries? Why or why not?

I am never really understood the use of such analogies. Is the removal of god supposed to make the argument more convincing? Is the association of the god with some supposed fictional being supposed to make the argument more convincing? Yes, I understand atheists see an equivalence between god and such beings (i.e., no [material] evidence). I am quite capable of following the line of reasoning contained within the original argument. I am capable of following the same reasoning within the analogy. Yet, if I am unconvinced by the original argument, then I will remain unconvinced by the analogy. In fact, such analogies actually diminish the original argument. How so? It shows the atheist fails to realize he/she is not on the same page.

I suspect my requests for definition above will show precisely that.

 

[makinbacon]

Absolute and utter nonsense.

Agreed.

Show me how you are NOT openly "rebelling against Allah".

This reeks of the "one less god" comment by Stephen Roberts. Let's not open that silliness.

 

[Jake]

Agreed.


This reeks of the "one less god" comment by Stephen Roberts. Let's not open that silliness.

So mak, we are not all born with the inward knowledge of God?

And with that knowledge, if we reject it, we are not in rebellion?

All right then, D is not rebelling against that inward knowledge God gave him, he just has a "lack of belief". WHICH IS REBELLION.

 

[makinbacon]

So mak, we are not all born with the inward knowledge of God?

No, we are not.

And with that knowledge, if we reject it, we are not in rebellion?

The two concepts are not necessarily synonymous.

All right then, D is not rebelling against that inward knowledge God gave him, he just has a "lack of belief". WHICH IS REBELLION.

See above.

 

[Deavonreye]

You have introduced the terms evidence and testability. I need to know precisely what you mean by these. These tend to be ambiguous and loaded when introduced into conversations of this nature.

: Why would you need MY definition of these words? I think we all know what the meaning of them is. It is "science 101".

I am never really understood the use of such analogies. Is the removal of god supposed to make the argument more convincing? Is the association of the god with some supposed fictional being supposed to make the argument more convincing? Yes, I understand atheists see an equivalence between god and such beings (i.e., no [material] evidence). I am quite capable of following the line of reasoning contained within the original argument. I am capable of following the same reasoning within the analogy. Yet, if I am unconvinced by the original argument, then I will remain unconvinced by the analogy. In fact, such analogies actually diminish the original argument. How so? It shows the atheist fails to realize he/she is not on the same page.

I suspect my requests for definition above will show precisely that.

The argument works because there is equal evidence of any god figure and supposed "mythical being" [such as faeries]. Each has books written about them and have personal experences attested to by people.

This reeks of the "one less god" comment by Stephen Roberts. Let's not open that silliness.

It is far from "silliness". Christianity claims to have "the truth". So does Islam. Why don't you [and Rockie] believe that you are openly rebelling against Allah? It is because you don't believe that Allah is true, therefore, you have no issue with rejecting the notion that you are "rebelling against Allah".

In the same way, the belief that an atheist [or agnostic] is "rebelling because they don't agree with christian dogma" is equally absurd.

 

[makinbacon]

: Why would you need MY definition of these words? I think we all know what the meaning of them is. It is "science 101".

If we are presenting different concepts with similar terminology then we end up talking past one another.

The argument works because there is equal evidence of any god figure and supposed "mythical being" [such as faeries]. Each has books written about them and have personal experences attested to by people.

We are clearly not on the same page. If you define the terms, then perhaps we can move beyond this impasse. If you refuse to define the terms, then there is no point in continuing the discussion.

It is far from "silliness". Christianity claims to have "the truth". So does Islam. Why don't you [and Rockie] believe that you are openly rebelling against Allah? It is because you don't believe that Allah is true, therefore, you have no issue with rejecting the notion that you are "rebelling against Allah".

I was not commenting on your disagreement with Rockie. I was commenting on the flavor of your response. As for Roberts, you kids should really stop skipping atheist Sunday school. ;)

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

This is silly.

In the same way, the belief that an atheist [or agnostic] is "rebelling because they don't agree with christian dogma" is equally absurd.

Yes, I agree again.

 

[Deavonreye]

If we are presenting different concepts with similar terminology then we end up talking past one another. We are clearly not on the same page. If you define the terms, then perhaps we can move beyond this impasse. If you refuse to define the terms, then there is no point in continuing the discussion.

For me, evidence is what is found with discovery, is repeatable, and is not vague, but clear.

I was not commenting on your disagreement with Rockie. I was commenting on the flavor of your response. As for Roberts, you kids should really stop skipping atheist Sunday school. ;)

This [Steven Roberts quote] is silly.

I'm not an atheist.

And before I continue, I see that you DID disagree with Rockie's post. :yes

As for the quote from Roberts, it really isn't that silly. "
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Whereas I wouldn't go so far as to call a christian "a form of atheist", the point should be understood by those who don't agree with the evidence [either] for the christian god. The bold part is what I'm getting at. They don't "have evidence that shows that the christian god doesn't exist". They just do not find the "arguments FOR" to be compelling.

Having said that, . . . do you find arguments for Allah to be compelling? I remember [now] the Roberts quote, but was not thinking of it when I made my post above. And I posted above because of Rockie's statement that "those who don't believe in god are actually just being rebellious. . . . . and because SOME people like to incorporate "Pascal's Wager" into their method of prostelitizing, in the same way, I turn the question around . . . because it could be just as true that Islam is the "one true religion". [a point that I openly reject]

 

[Jake]

I'm not an atheist.

Agreed, D, I've read your posts, you are a believer in denial! You are in rebellion, give it up, God ALWAYS WINS! And I say this in the sincerest possible way a person can say this on a forum. :yes You are a brother and you don't even know it.

I am not trying to come against you. What I said above is what I really believe.

 

[Deavonreye]

Agreed, D, I've read your posts, you are a believer in denial! You are in rebellion, give it up, God ALWAYS WINS! And I say this in the sincerest possible way a person can say this on a forum. :yes You are a brother and you don't even know it.

I am not trying to come against you. What I said above is what I really believe.

Rockie, I'm agnostic, . . . but having not had any true experiences, nor having seen any compelling arguments, I am much closer to atheism than "believing in a deity". Regardless, . . . please show me, without question, how I am "being rebellious"! Show me how I am "in denial". One must FIRST be presented with clear and precise information, repeatable in testing, . . . and only THEN can the person make a judgement upon the veracity of this information. Show me your information that I am supposedly "denying" and "being rebellious to".

 

[Jake]

Rockie, I'm agnostic, . . . but having not had any true experiences, nor having seen any compelling arguments, I am much closer to atheism than "believing in a deity". Regardless, . . . please show me, without question, how I am "being rebellious"! Show me how I am "in denial". One must FIRST be presented with clear and precise information, repeatable in testing, . . . and only THEN can the person make a judgement upon the veracity of this information. Show me your information that I am supposedly "denying" and "being rebellious to".

It seems in one of your posts you said you used to go to church and then for some reason you stopped going and for another reason you started questioning it. Unbelief is a sin, for Christians, yet we all, at one time, do have doubts, but we can pray through them. So essentially, you have already been presented with at least some truth and now you say you do not believe anymore.

I am going to pray that you do not go the atheism way - seriously, I am going to pray for you.

 

[Deavonreye]

It seems in one of your posts you said you used to go to church and then for some reason you stopped going and for another reason you started questioning it. Unbelief is a sin, for Christians, yet we all, at one time, do have doubts, but we can pray through them. So essentially, you have already been presented with at least some truth and now you say you do not believe anymore.

I am going to pray that you do not go the atheism way - seriously, I am going to pray for you.

The sequence is out of order a bit. I had questions, started to do my own research, and soon after left the church, realizing that I had no real experience and was only "a christian" because my parents raised me to be. When I actually took the time to research the history, the passages, and the natural world, I discovered I never was a christian and agreed with those who were not of the religion.

Again, I must insist that you show me this "truth" you claim that I am "openly rebelling against". Simply stating it is meaningless.

 

[Jake]

The sequence is out of order a bit. I had questions, started to do my own research, and soon after left the church, realizing that I had no real experience and was only "a christian" because my parents raised me to be. When I actually took the time to research the history, the passages, and the natural world, I discovered I never was a christian and agreed with those who were not of the religion.

Again, I must insist that you show me this "truth" you claim that I am "openly rebelling against". Simply stating it is meaningless.

If you were a Christian, you would be in rebellion right now, I guess I was wrong about you, it's hard for me to believe that you do not know of some existance of God though. You are trying to intellectually analyze something that is spiritual, imo.
Some people can go to church their whole lives and really not know anything about the Bible and not know Him, it seems it happens more often than what we think, but maybe it's just simply they do not know there is more.

It might be meaningless to you, but it's not to me.

 

[Deavonreye]

If you were a Christian, you would be in rebellion right now, I guess I was wrong about you, it's hard for me to believe that you do not know of some existance of God though. You are trying to intellectually analyze something that is spiritual, imo.
Some people can go to church their whole lives and really not know anything about the Bible and not know Him, it seems it happens more often than what we think, but maybe it's just simply they do not know there is more.

It might be meaningless to you, but it's not to me.

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying that "your belief is meaningless". I'm saying that, without clear and concise evidence, stating that "I am being rebellious" is meaningless and just your opinion. I hope you can see the difference.

As far as "knowing the bible", since I began my research, I have discovered much more about the bible than I did when I was a christian. It makes sense, since pastors usually focus on the same types of sermons and leave other parts of the bible untouched. I have discovered some amazing sections that have instilled within me the agreement that I'm best outside of this belief structure.

Anyway, yes, . . . I have not had any compelling reason to "know that a god exists".

 

[whitney]

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying that "your belief is meaningless". I'm saying that, without clear and concise evidence, stating that "I am being rebellious" is meaningless and just your opinion. I hope you can see the difference.

As far as "knowing the bible", since I began my research, I have discovered much more about the bible than I did when I was a christian. It makes sense, since pastors usually focus on the same types of sermons and leave other parts of the bible untouched. I have discovered some amazing sections that have instilled within me the agreement that I'm best outside of this belief structure.

Anyway, yes, . . . I have not had any compelling reason to "know that a god exists".

This is where faith comes in though, believing w/out seeing, and believe me, once you start doing this, you will see things happen. You have to see it for yourself, I realize that, another person can not hand off faith to another person, but we can pray and I will stand with Rockie and pray for you, too.

I do not know what kind of church you went to, but yes, some do this to "prove" their doctrine and that is why so many people have left the church. I did go through a period of doubts, like many people, but what I was doing was looking to the church building and criticizing it, but placing God in there with it, too. God is not a church building, as I am sure you know, but people tend to look at the church building and the things they do and place that onto God.

 

[Deavonreye]

I had a type of "faith", back then, . . . but it didn't yield anything of value. Just the same old silence. "Faith" is far from evidential and "just believing" is beyond my ability. It would be deceptive if I tried.

Anyway, it wasn't the church that I had issues with. Sometimes I miss the friends I made there. My issue is as stated above.