The "Lack of Belief" Word Game

[Jake]

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.

Yes, very well put! People can see God as the church building and all that goes on inside is "from God" and that is not always true. Bad "churches" can do alot of harm to people.

D - yes, I do see the difference, as a Christian, being in rebellion is not my opinion though, it would be a fact and God would let me know.

 

[Jake]

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.

We all have faith in something, D. Are you saying that everything you put your faith in is deceptive

Science, maybe? Man? Now this I would agree with you, they are deceptive.

 

[makinbacon]

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

This is why we are talking past one another. We are using different definitions of evidence. To properly understand my argument, you will need to understand my definition of evidence. I define evidence as "support sufficient to meet the burden of proof within context." This means what constitutes evidence will be contextual. It will depend on the participants engaged in the discussion. Please reread my argument with the above definition in mind.

I'm not an atheist.

My apologies. I should have said non-theist.

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."

The Christian rejects other gods because they have already accepted the one true God. The rejection is a logical consequence of an existing belief. Does Roberts reject all gods because he believes in a one true god? No. This would inconsistent. What Roberts is attempting to suggest is that Christians reject other gods because they don't find the evidence for them convincing. This shows Roberts fails to properly understand the Christian perspective.

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.

I'm not following you. Is this connected to the Roberts quote or something else?

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]

I am not familiar with the arguments for Allah. Thus, I cannot say whether or not I find them to be compelling. However, as a Christian, I reject the existence of all other deities.

With regard to Pascal's Wager, I do not believe many theists actually employ Pascal's Wager. I'd suggest they use a vaguely similar argument but have never even heard of Pascal or his wager.

 

[makinbacon]

Dear Rockie,

Please stop corrupting my thread with off topic posts and unrelated rabbit trails. Let's maintain focus. Thank you.

 

[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.

Dude....READ MY POSTS AGAIN....this is YOUR OP, this is what we're talking about. "Lack of belief", "does God exist", it's a discussion, one in which you kindly gave the definition. If you wanted to just talk with D, then do it by PM. Jump in for goodness sakes!

 

[whitney]

Dude....READ MY POSTS AGAIN....this is YOUR OP, this is what we're talking about. "Lack of belief", "does God exist", it's a discussion, one in which you kindly gave the definition. If you wanted to just talk with D, then do it by PM. Jump in for goodness sakes!

I agree with Rockie, we were talking about exactly what your OP suggests we discuss??? Or maybe you don't feel comfortable jumping in on your own thread? Hmmm....
But I will kindly step out of your thread and go talk to someone else about something else. GEEZE!

 

[jasoncran]

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.

the athiest if he is honest is agnostic meaning that he doesnt know if a god exists.

 

[Jake]

the athiest if he is honest is agnostic meaning that he doesnt know if a god exists.

Thanks jason, he did say that but said he is leaning toward atheism. I was trying to understand where he was coming from and talk to him about it, but was yelled at for corrupting the thread, which is fine, I'll talk to him some other time.

 

[Deavonreye]

Yes, makinbacon, . . . we appear to be having a disconnect. And I understand the christian notion that "all other gods are false/dead because the one true god is already known". However, this believe could be said to be a matter of culture. To the Muslim, Allah makes the most sense and can only be the "one true god".

As for evidence, I am willing to look at any evidence offered to me, . . . however, I am also required to critique it fully, using many sources to determine veracity.

 

[Deavonreye]

Thanks jason, he did say that but said he is leaning toward atheism. I was trying to understand where he was coming from and talk to him about it, but was yelled at for corrupting the thread, which is fine, I'll talk to him some other time.

Rockie, I only "lean towards atheism" because I have yet to be affected by a belief system. I refuse to blindly follow and I refuse to just agree because people have a strong belief in it, or have had experiences themselves. I don't know if there are any deities in existence. I'd like to know, but none of them have chosen to make themselves known, though I am open to them. Either they don't exist, or don't care about me enough to let me know they're there.

 

[Jakeness]

The problem with the OP is that you are making the positive claim of "there is a god." Therefore, you have the burden of proof. The negative claim of "there is no god" is based almost entirely on the positive team's inability to follow up with evidence or logical argument for their position.

To disprove the god concept as a whole is impossible. It's to vague and without specifics that even if scientists discovered everything about everything and nothing about the universe required a deity, it would still not disprove god. You can still effectively "add zero to the equation" by saying god did it.

However, deity's that have identifiable characteristics such as the Christian god can be disproved. It's already been done dozens of times, but if I were to post any of it I'd probably be insta-banned.

 

[makinbacon]

Dude....READ MY POSTS AGAIN....this is YOUR OP, this is what we're talking about. "Lack of belief", "does God exist", it's a discussion, one in which you kindly gave the definition. If you wanted to just talk with D, then do it by PM. Jump in for goodness sakes!

Dude. Wrong. Read the original post again, particularly the last paragraph. My original post is about the word game played by atheists when they incorporate "lack of belief" into discussions about "does a god exist" in order to shield themselves from a burden of proof.

 

[makinbacon]

Yes, makinbacon, . . . we appear to be having a disconnect. And I understand the christian notion that "all other gods are false/dead because the one true god is already known". However, this believe could be said to be a matter of culture. To the Muslim, Allah makes the most sense and can only be the "one true god".

Yes, we agree. I would not imagine of presenting the "one true god" concept as an argument for God. That would be nonsense. Though, I am not entirely certain what the connection to the discussion about word games. It seems you desire to bring an end to the discussion. Is that a fair assessment?

As for evidence, I am willing to look at any evidence offered to me, . . . however, I am also required to critique it fully, using many sources to determine veracity.

It seems you are unwilling to commitment to a perspective for the broader discussion of "does a god exist," and instead want to focus on the particulars. I can understand that. It's safe. I often do it myself.

 

[makinbacon]

The problem with the OP is that you are making the positive claim of "there is a god." Therefore, you have the burden of proof. The negative claim of "there is no god" is based almost entirely on the positive team's inability to follow up with evidence or logical argument for their position.

Our disagreement rests on the relationship between a claim and the burden of proof. I consider the distinction between positive and negative claims to be a red herring. Claims are statements made which must be either true or false. Both "there is a god" and "there is no god" are either true or false. What is the relationship between claims and the burden of proof?

Within a discussion, humans generally follow and expect other participants to follow the cooperative principle and divided into the four Gricean Maxims. If an atheist engages in a discussion about "does a god exist" and claims "there is no god," then according to the Maxim of Quality it should be assumed the atheist is making a claim for which they know or have good reason to believe as true. It is then reasonable of the other participants to request the reasons. If the atheist refuses to provide such reasons, then the atheist is flouting the Maxim of Relation and the Maxim of Quality. As such, the atheist is violating the cooperative principle.

To disprove the god concept as a whole is impossible. It's to vague and without specifics that even if scientists discovered everything about everything and nothing about the universe required a deity, it would still not disprove god. You can still effectively "add zero to the equation" by saying god did it.

I agree a general conception of god is near impossible, if not impossible, to disprove.

However, deity's that have identifiable characteristics such as the Christian god can be disproved. It's already been done dozens of times, but if I were to post any of it I'd probably be insta-banned.

To be honest, I would oppose such a ban. I am not a moderator or administrator though. However, it's unlikely I would be impressed or convinced by such arguments unless they surpassed those of Parsons, Martin, or Oppy.

 

[Deavonreye]

makinbacon, I am not an expert in debate, and it seems like you are insisting on an expert debate here. If I'm not up to speed on debating tactics, that by no means indicates that my point is invalidated. I am posting what I feel about this topic. I am neither wanting to take "the easy road", nor am I wishing to "end the discussion". So why don't you state your point, and I will evalutate it!

It isn't possible to "test for a god". For me, the only "evidence" is a book written by men, around 2,000-3,000 years ago, and people who want me to believe it to be true. For me, this isn't compelling evidence to believe in any specific god.

 

[whitney]

Dude. Wrong. Read the original post again, particularly the last paragraph. My original post is about the word game played by atheists when they incorporate "lack of belief" into discussions about "does a god exist" in order to shield themselves from a burden of proof.

Ah, now you play the word game.....silly.

 

[makinbacon]

makinbacon, I am not an expert in debate, and it seems like you are insisting on an expert debate here. If I'm not up to speed on debating tactics, that by no means indicates that my point is invalidated. I am posting what I feel about this topic. I am neither wanting to take "the easy road", nor am I wishing to "end the discussion". So why don't you state your point, and I will evalutate it!

See my original post.

 

[makinbacon]

Ah, now you play the word game.....silly.

I'll humor you. What word game am I playing?

 

[Deavonreye]

Can you give a summary of what Parsons, Martin, or Oppy states?

 

[Oats]

First Law of thermodynamics...