Burden of proof (philosophy)

He's talking to himself. Oh no.

 

You are incorrect. Epistemology is a study about knowledge. The discussion of the existance of evidence or proof about the existance of god or the lack thereof is about faith. Two entirely separate areas of the human experience.

 

it goes back to belief, all beliefs are faith in terms of absolutes, and both correctly apply to theists and atheists. I use the coin comparison it lands on one side or the other never both at the same time.

One thing that is clear is that atheists are unable to use reason and logic to advance their argument.

 

We have beaten that claim into the ground. No matter how you phrase it or attempt to argue it believing in something for which there is no evidence is not the same as not believing in something for which there is no evidence.

 

it does not matter if its positive or negative its still a belief, long before we get to discussing evidence.

 

"Atheist" comes from the Greek a (without) - theos (Gods) and is simply someone without a belief in Gods and is equivalent to not believing in God. Keep in mind that not believing in something isn't the same as believing God doesn't exist. For example, I don't believe in elves because I don't see any evidence for them being real. But that isn't the same as claiming elves don't exist because I have no proof elves don't exist anywhere in the universe. Until then I will simply not believe in their existence until I am shown evidence for or against their existence.

Now some atheists do claim that God doesn't exist but there are many who only don't believe God exists. See online definitions of what atheists are.

"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
Oxford Dictionary

"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
Google

"a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods"
Marriam Webster

"Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."
Wikipedia

"1.) A person who lacks belief in a god or gods."
"2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist. "
Urban Dictionary

"The definition of an atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power."
Your Dictionary

"someone who does not believe that God exists"
MacMillan Dictionary

 

Then you should not call yourself an atheist because atheist is an affirmative belief that God does not exist.

lack of belief is an affirmative belief God does not exist, the only one that gets you where you apparently want o go is agnostic, but then you cant take either the atheist or theist position at the same time or you contradict yourself.

You guys want to take 1/2 of the agnostic equation apply it to yourselves then call it atheist and it does not work that way.

A category mistake, or category error, or categorical mistake, or mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category, or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that ...

 

To avoid the above problems, pin down the individual with the following question: "Does God exist?"

Answer: "No." Atheist (belief)
Answer: "We don't know or can't prove it either way." Agnostic (belief)
Answer: "Yes." Theist. (belief)
Answer: "Yes, but s/he doesn't take an active interest in human affairs." Deist (belief)
Answer: "Yes, many." Polytheist (belief)

Avoid using the terms "lacks belief" or "disbelief" as vague and unspecific, since they can't differentiate agnostics and atheists.

 

Again, I will post the dictionary definitions that conflicts with your stringent definition that atheists don't just not believe in God but actually claim he doesn't exist. It sounds like you are taking only one definition of atheism without looking at all definitions. Its like saying that a bat is not something used in baseball because I found that bats are animals that fly around in caves.

Atheist - a (without) theos (Gods)
Etymology Dictionary

"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
Oxford Dictionary

"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
Google

"a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods"
Marriam Webster

"Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."
Wikipedia

"1.) A person who lacks belief in a god or gods."
"2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist. "
Urban Dictionary

"The definition of an atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power."
Your Dictionary

"someone who does not believe that God exists"
MacMillan Dictionary

 

What a waste of time. Your dictionary definitions are so all over the place that some of them actually conflict with each other. A bat being used in baseball does not conflict with a bat being a flying mammal. That's why I said to pin down the individual in question with the specific query, "Does God exist?" That way, you avoid the attempts to use slippery terms like "lack belief" and "disbelieve". And yes, I deny categorically any difference exists between these two expressions: "I disbelieve in God," and "I believe God does not exist." Atheists would prefer to use the former and deny the latter because they don't want to admit that what they have is a "belief". A lack of belief is still a belief. Here's a wonderful (but very deep) article on the nature of belief from a philosophical standpoint: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/ The first paragraph:

 

That because there are two definitions:
Lack beliefs in God (does not believe)
Believe God doesn't exist

So me the definitions that conflict and I will show how this explains it.

Baseball bats by definition can't be flying mammal bats. Those definitions conflict but that is ok because they are just two separate definitions of the same world. Many words have more than one and often conflicting definitions.

I do not claim absolute knowledge of whether God exists. This makes me an agnostic. But I also don't believe in God which makes me an atheist. So I am an atheist agnotic.

What about "I do not believe in God" and "I believe God does not exist."

Is a lack of an an orange an orange? Is a lack of food food? A lack is something isn't that thing by definition.

So lets use your test on a separate question. Do garden gnomes exist?

 

there is no conflict in the definitions. you simply are stating 2 different things as 1.

Properly stated its:

1) 'lack belief a deity exists' (a belief that a deity does not exist)
2) 'belief a deity exists' (a belief that a deity does exist)

now you have a properly formatted condition.

believing 'in' God is not the same as believing God exists/ or not

 

Heya, it's quite possible that we do agree. I imagine some of the differences comes from the fact that we're not fully clued in with each others' contexts.

I feel I need to look closer into some bits. I agree that "I do not believe in God" is basically the same as "I believe in no God" but I'm not 100% that I'm reading the lines the same way you do. "I believe in no God" means "there are no God such that I believe in it" (or if you will, "the number of gods in which I believe is none") which in turn means "I do not believe in a God" (with reservation for plurality and god/God). However, I fear that by "I believe in no God", you actually mean "I believe in [there is no God]", especially given the phrasing in your other post which was quoted to me: "I believe in not God". This does not seem to mean the same thing to me. Just like "I painted no house" means "I did not paint a house" but not "I painted something which wasn't a house" (although the latter can sometimes be inferred from context).

I use the word disbelief in the way I do mostly because it's a part of the argument that me and Kokomojojo have agreed upon. We have agreed that it is the absence of belief, and also because Kokomojojo specifically referenced the definition given by many atheists that atheism is a disbelief.

I should point out to you as I have to Kokomojojo that I'm not proclaiming that the version I present is the only true version, indeed, it depends on a couple of definitions (although none of them unreasonable). My argument is against Kokomojojo's claim that the argument *cannot* be made.

I cannot speak for other atheists. It is quite possible that they have managed to argue themselves into a position where there are repercussions for strange definitions of words. Certainly, it does not logically follow that failure on theists' part to defend their claims gives credence to the opposite view (although it might from context, but that's another story). To use them like that would be a false equivalence. I do not know what arguments these atheists are making or whether I'd agree with either their setup of the argument or its conclusion.

 

Quite possible. We should be aware that while we're talking about exactly what the words do and can mean, many people will place different emphasis on different words depending on what angle they want to take. There can be two atheist agnostics, one of who will call themselves an agnostic because it gives the perks of fence-sitting, and one who will call themselves an atheist in order to put pressure on religious things. The difference between them is not the beliefs, but where they want to put their emphasis.

Many of the atheist agnostics are well aware that God as often characterised could be infinitely good at hiding, so there's no particular point in trying to defend "there is no god" formally, given that "none of the presented god concepts are persuasive" is all you really need in practice.

 

Cool, fair enough.

Yeah that's the point. In this case, you're allowed to define yourself to victory, since all we need is a single counterexample to prove that "you can't prove a negative" is not true in general. Naturally, I will use ideas which are defined precisely to put pressure on the breaking points of the argument.

True. I really think this is an unimportant aside. It is not impossible to prove a negative, but God is infinitely good at hiding, so in his case it actually is impossible to prove that negative. The points I'm making here are esoteric and mostly for my own interest.

 

So are you saying that a lack of belief in something is the same as the belief it is false?

 

No that is not what I am saying; I am saying what I said before that:

'lack of belief something does EXIST is the same as belief something does not EXIST'.

you need to lose the 'in' to stay consistent.

 

thats not true, if all you can prove is a single example all you have proven is an exception to rule, NOT the rule and every rule that I ever heard of has at lest one exception, it does not change the general rule which is that you can prove a negative easy peasy.

If you want a **** load of exceptions to the rule look at relativity!

 

Ok, so the lack of belief something does exist is the same as the belief something does not exist. But why is this only true for belief in existence? What about other types of beliefs?

Is the lack of belief in a political position the same as believing the political position is false?
Is the lack of belief that a future event will happen the same as believing it won't happen?
Is the lack of belief that something exists the same as believing that it doesn't exist?

In general is the lack of belief in X the same as believing X is false whether that X is belief in existence, believe in a political position, or believe in a future event?

 

Before you can use that term you need to prove how there is such a thing since an agnostic holds no belief either way as the sole condition. You have seen several citations and had it explained ot you severl times that agnostic not hold either belief or disbelief, therefore cannot be used in the temrs you are using it.

 

Yeh,

I mean the thing to do is grab your pen and paper write the proofs and truth table out if you are so sure then you have the logical proofs and who can argue with that?

call up your college prof have him give it to you I dont care where it comes from.

 

I am a bit slow at philosophy sorry so I apologize if you have to repeat yourself. So what it really looks like to me is if someone's position includes the lack of belief in God's existence it means that their position includes belief that God doesn't exist and they are automatically atheist. And this is true for 100% of people who lack belief in God's existence no exceptions. Is that true?

 

yes, no.

an agnostic lacks both belief and disbelief because he lacks adequate knowledge to conclusively decide either way, therefore is neutral.

Otherwise you cant lack belief in the existence of God without first making a conclusion that you believe God does not exist.

Now if you have never been introduced to the concept of God, thats different, but once someone asks you and you say huh....and they explain, now you have been introduced to the concept and whatever opinion you form other than agnostic is a binary belief, yes in the case of lack belief in, atheist, that is the definition of an atheist.

 

You said:
'lack of belief something does EXIST is the same as belief something does not EXIST'.

'an agnostic lacks both belief and disbelief because he lacks adequate knowledge to conclusively decide either way, therefore is neutral.'

If agnostics lacks belief God exists by your own admission and a lack of belief something does exist is the same a belief something does not exist then it logically follows that agnostics believe God doesn't exist. This just logically follows. So maybe a lack of belief something does exist isn't always the same as belief something does not exist in some cases.

 

I think I see where the snag is, my poor way of describing it. more concisely an agnostic forms no conclusion either for or against., the operative word is neutral, which means nothing in common with either the atheist position or the theist position.

In addition an agnostic believes he cant know the answer