Atheist contrivances used to avoid presenting the case for their beliefs

[Keith_]

The question "does god exist?" is neutral, but in debating this question atheist will often assert that "no" is the default position as a matter of bruit fact.  Additionally, if the theist challenges the atheist to present positive arguments for atheism, the "no" claimed to be the default, is contradicted by arguing that no position has been taken (i.e. "lack of belief"). 

If a theist allows the atheist to set the debate ground rules using these two contradictory claims, it effectively sets the debate ground rules such that the atheist need only show that each of the theists arguments are not irrefutable.  Clearly, the end effect is an attempt to win debate using contrivances rather than logic and evidence to support the position. In my opinion, this is an implicit confession that the case for atheism is abysmal.

So, how can theists get atheists to debate without trying to rig the game?

One way is to frame the question differently, as with asking "Does the evidence better fit atheism or theism? IMO, this would expose the faith-based nature of atheism would be exposed immediately if the atheist were to argue, as they do now, that evidence for atheism isn't needed.  In contrast, the theist would be presenting a number of convincing apologetic arguments.  Isn't this

-Keith

[Harvey]

The bottomline misconception is that certain beliefs are the default belief, and that somehow the default belief must be proven false before any other belief can take its place. But, that's incorrect. There are no default beliefs -- just beliefs with so many reasons to accept that we'd be mad not to accept them.

So, take any so-called belief, such as "we exist." The reasoning in support of this belief that supposedly must be accepted is rather clear. We have veridical perceptions. If we didn't exist then this would be false. We do have such perceptions, therefore we exist.

Once any belief, including agnostic beliefs, are understood as needing evidential and philosophical support, it's quite clear that they lack clear support for their being true.

Perhaps the biggest concern of atheists trying to redefine the popular meaning of atheism is not that it tries to shift the burden of proof to theists, but my biggest concern is that we as a society are becoming more and more ignorant of philosophy even as scientific knowledge increases.

[wonderer]

The question "does god exist?" is neutral, but in debating this question atheist will often assert that "no" is the default position as a matter of bruit fact.  Additionally, if the theist challenges the atheist to present positive arguments for atheism, the "no" claimed to be the default, is contradicted by arguing that no position has been taken (i.e. "lack of belief"). 

I suspect this notion is mainly a matter of imagining debating imaginary atheists, which your imagination has concocted on the basis of hearing from a variety of individual actual atheists.

I can give you reasons why I don't believe God to be a metaphysical possibility.  On the other hand, many atheists (probably most) wouldn't even have much idea how to interpret the phrase "metaphysical possibility".  For many such atheists, "lacks belief" is a good way of describing their view. 

Furthermore, I might defend the reasonableness of such a person calling themselves an atheist on the basis of their lack of belief.  However, a theist hearing such a defense from me, would be making a mistake in thinking I was making two contradictory claims about my own beliefs.

Perhaps this comes as a surprise for some Christians, but atheists tend to consider it okay for people to be unique individuals.  We don't tend to get together every week to make sure everyone conforms.  It might be helpful to bear this in mind if/when you try to engage an actual atheist in debate.  But then, you also should keep in mind that some individual atheists just won't want to debate at all, or to debate you specifically.

[Triple Scooby]

It takes a lot of faith given the scientific impossibility of everything coming from absolutely nothing.

Given the evidence of everything, we can know God exists and understand some of His nature.

[Tom Paine]

The question "does god exist?" is neutral, but in debating this question atheist will often assert that "no" is the default position as a matter of bruit fact.  Additionally, if the theist challenges the atheist to present positive arguments for atheism, the "no" claimed to be the default, is contradicted by arguing that no position has been taken (i.e. "lack of belief"). 

Please, in debate the affirmative is almost always the side carrying the burden of proof. The negative has the burden of rebuttal. When arguing over whether something  exists or not, it also makes sense to place the burden on the affirmative, because if something exists there should expect there to be some positive evidence of existence. But what is the positive evidence for the non existence of something?

No, it make perfect sense to look at it as the burden of proof is on the theist to present the evidence for God's existence. That doesn't mean the atheiast has no burden, but his burden is to rebut the evidence offered by the theist, not present evidence of their own, because as I said there just isn't any positive evidence for the non existence of something.

If a theist allows the atheist to set the debate ground rules using these two contradictory claims, it effectively sets the debate ground rules such that the atheist need only show that each of the theists arguments are not irrefutable.  Clearly, the end effect is an attempt to win debate using contrivances rather than logic and evidence to support the position. In my opinion, this is an implicit confession that the case for atheism is abysmal.

No, there's no contrivance, it's just the way rational debate should work.

So, how can theists get atheists to debate without trying to rig the game?

The atheist isn't rigging the game. This is the way the game is supposed to work. Trying to force the atheist to provide positive evidence for a negative claim is just a fallacious attempt to shift the burden of proof.

One way is to frame the question differently, as with asking "Does the evidence better fit atheism or theism? IMO, this would expose the faith-based nature of atheism would be exposed immediately if the atheist were to argue, as they do now, that evidence for atheism isn't needed.  In contrast, the theist would be presenting a number of convincing apologetic arguments.  Isn't this

-Keith

Sure, does the evidence better fit atheism than theism. I'd say the atheist wins that one hands down, except that the theist is probably going to just keep moving the goal posts. I mean every time the atheist point s out that such and such a piece of evidence is not what one would expect to find under theism, we are told that we don't understand theism...and of course there are many brands of theism with different assumptions, so....or some ad hoc rationalization is offered. The best example of this is with PofE. The atheist points out that we should no expect to find evil in a world created by an all-powerful and all-good being, bit we find evil in the world, so... So, it's argued that we can't know the totality of God's plan and so it could be that fro every evil allowed a greater good will come that justifies it. But, is there any reason to think this other than that it would save the God hypothesis? No, so it's just an ad hoc rationalization. And IMO A LOT of the so called "convincing apologetic arguments" are similarly ad hoc, and/or logically fallacious.

So, stop with the trying to shift the burden of proof already. If you want other people to believe that the universe is the creation of a mysterious unseen, extra dimensional person. Sorry, the burden of proof IS on you.

[Johan Biemans (jbiemans)]

Is this thread really representative of where the discussion is at right now ?  Are you all really questioning the concept of a null hypothesis ?  Or are you just doubting that the null position ought to be the negative ?

Imagine for a second that the null position for questions of belief in the existence of x was positive. This would mean that you must believe that every unknown x exists even if the definitions of different xs are mutually exclusive and contradictory of each other. Does this sound rational ?

[kravarnik]

The question "does god exist?" is neutral, but in debating this question atheist will often assert that "no" is the default position as a matter of bruit fact.  Additionally, if the theist challenges the atheist to present positive arguments for atheism, the "no" claimed to be the default, is contradicted by arguing that no position has been taken (i.e. "lack of belief"). 

I suspect this notion is mainly a matter of imagining debating imaginary atheists, which your imagination has concocted on the basis of hearing from a variety of individual actual atheists.

I can give you reasons why I don't believe God to be a metaphysical possibility.  On the other hand, many atheists (probably most) wouldn't even have much idea how to interpret the phrase "metaphysical possibility".  For many such atheists, "lacks belief" is a good way of describing their view. 

Furthermore, I might defend the reasonableness of such a person calling themselves an atheist on the basis of their lack of belief.  However, a theist hearing such a defense from me, would be making a mistake in thinking I was making two contradictory claims about my own beliefs.

Perhaps this comes as a surprise for some Christians, but atheists tend to consider it okay for people to be unique individuals.  We don't tend to get together every week to make sure everyone conforms.  It might be helpful to bear this in mind if/when you try to engage an actual atheist in debate.  But then, you also should keep in mind that some individual atheists just won't want to debate at all, or to debate you specifically.

As far as I recollect, Dawkins and Hitchens both said that we are all atheists(but, you know, they simply go one god further), and that the default is being an atheist, and they are the two guys with best selling books on atheism. So, it doesn't seem like Keith is addressing an imaginary position.

[kravarnik]

Is this thread really representative of where the discussion is at right now ?  Are you all really questioning the concept of a null hypothesis ?  Or are you just doubting that the null position ought to be the negative ?

Imagine for a second that the null position for questions of belief in the existence of x was positive. This would mean that you must believe that every unknown x exists even if the definitions of different xs are mutually exclusive and contradictory of each other. Does this sound rational ?

Please, JB, would you be kind enough to give the rationale for why the "null hypothesis" is at all presupposed? I mean, we have no reason to believe in such a hypothesis to begin with.

[Emuse]

The null hypothesis is "that which must be disproved" if one is to claim that a positive assertion has proof.    So proof of the claim "Bob is wearing a hat" will (somewhat trivially) disprove the claim "Bob is not wearing a hat".   "Bob is not wearing a hat" is the null hypothesis in that context.

[lucious]

Is this thread really representative of where the discussion is at right now ?  Are you all really questioning the concept of a null hypothesis ?  Or are you just doubting that the null position ought to be the negative ?

Imagine for a second that the null position for questions of belief in the existence of x was positive. This would mean that you must believe that every unknown x exists even if the definitions of different xs are mutually exclusive and contradictory of each other. Does this sound rational ?

I have doubts the null hypothesis is at all applicable in philosophical discussion.

[Emuse]

Philosophy literally has nothing to say about the null hypothesis, where it can be applied and where it cannot?  Is that the claim?  The null hypothesis is an epistemic approach we take in a context where we are trying to prove something - by its very nature.  It doesn't demand that we take the negative position but that, sans analysis, we take a position of not knowing.

[Johan Biemans (jbiemans)]

If it was actually possible, I would prefer that the null hypothesis was actually a null value rather than a 1 or a 0, but the world we find ourselves in requires us to pick a 1 or 0 in order to function, does it not ?  If we constantly left it on null, then we would be in a perpetual state of indecision, where we would likely be frozen in place.  and if we set it to 1, we would be in a constant state of cognitive dissonance and constant errors, because we are then forced to accept mutually exclusive positions as true at the same time.  This only leaves us with 0 as the functional setting for the null because the other 2 options cause the program to fail.

[Harvey]

The atheist isn't rigging the game. This is the way the game is supposed to work. Trying to force the atheist to provide positive evidence for a negative claim is just a fallacious attempt to shift the burden of proof.

You're assuming that atheism is a negative claim when it is a positive claim that the world is the way it is because it is a meaningless brute fact. If there were something necessary about the world, then the world exists for some reason, and reasons are semantic in nature.

The best example of this is with PofE. The atheist points out that we should no expect to find evil in a world created by an all-powerful and all-good being, bit we find evil in the world, so... So, it's argued that we can't know the totality of God's plan and so it could be that fro every evil allowed a greater good will come that justifies it. But, is there any reason to think this other than that it would save the God hypothesis? No, so it's just an ad hoc rationalization. And IMO A LOT of the so called "convincing apologetic arguments" are similarly ad hoc, and/or logically fallacious.

So, the argument in support of a meaningless brute fact universe is the existence of evil? Hm. The theist is not obligated to accept that since evil might serve an overall purpose, etc. The logical argument for the PoE has already been disproven, so it's certainly not necessarily the case the world must be a meaningless brute fact. The atheist has simply not made their case.

[Gordon Tubbs]

Maybe the issue here is characterizing non-believers as using avoidance mechanisms in the first place.

Try to understand why the "contrivances" are important to your interlocutor before critiquing them.

[kravarnik]

The null hypothesis is "that which must be disproved" if one is to claim that a positive assertion has proof.    So proof of the claim "Bob is wearing a hat" will (somewhat trivially) disprove the claim "Bob is not wearing a hat".   "Bob is not wearing a hat" is the null hypothesis in that context.

But I don't understand how that works in a philosophical discourse. It's one thing to have such a principle in highly strict disciplines and endeavors, where things are analyzed in isolation: say, court cases; statistical studies; formal debates on specific question and so on.


However, in philosophy you discuss the world, not merely some isolated question about it. So, in philosophy a negative remark is by entailment a positive one. When you say "God does not exist" that translates to the effect of claiming "The world IS something else", which doesn't include God.


If I say "there is no matter", then by extension that's also a positive claim, because I make a claim that the world IS in a particular way. Negating particular things by entailment lead to positive claims about other things, or the world.