Rock hard epistemological definitions of atheism

[searcherman]

Note tag line below. I've documented before that these definitions were set by apologists in 19th Century Britain.

"[...] denial of the existence of the Divine ..." Known as dogmatic atheism, very rare, and assumes burden of proof.

[...] "denial the Divine has been shown to exist ..." Critical atheism, today sometimes erroneously (IMO) lumped into agnostic atheism.

[...] "and denial that it can be known that the Divine exists." Sceptical, or agnostic atheism. Some apologists connflate this with Huxley's agnosticism.

The last two have no burden of proof whatsoever. Why do WLC and the philosophical apologist all-stars ignore this?

[Atheist in Louisiana]

Why do WLC and the philosophical apologist all-stars ignore this?

Because if they didn't ignore this, they would actually have to do the work of showing that their god exists.  They can't, so they have no choice but to attempt the old fashioned burden shifting technique.

[searcherman]

Why do WLC and the philosophical apologist all-stars ignore this?

Because if they didn't ignore this, they would actually have to do the work of showing that their god exists.  They can't, so they have no choice but to attempt the old fashioned burden shifting technique.

Their a-historicity on this is appalling. These Victorian theologians had to come up with with intellectually consistent definitions for many reasons, I presume. The most important being the revolution in Naturalism wrought by Darwin, and the atheistic agnostic philosophy of Huxley. Now it's true many of our great naturalist agnostics, Huxley, Ingersoll, Sagan, Tyson, and Nye eschew the label "atheist".  But in an odd bit of unity, Victorian Christian apologists and many of today's atheists agree, this form of agnosticism is a species of atheism. The critical atheists of the time always had Huxley's arguments as a default. I wouldn't go as far as David Silverman and say these agnostics were "lying". They just insist on a narrow definition of atheism. I'm not going to bust their nads about it.

But today's apologists get away with this form of AWOL intellectualism because they empower Dawkins and company with having some kind of philosophical chops. The New Atheists can't hold a candle to what Huxley and company unleashed. WLC and cohorts take advantage of this weakness and feel free to cheap shot away on this. What Dawkins and Harris are doing brilliantly is defend Naturalism in the realm of evolution and neurology, their areas of expertise.

Matt Dilahunty characterized WLC's role is just arguments for a deist god, while trying to shoehorn in Jesus somewhere along the way.

[lucious]

Why do WLC and the philosophical apologist all-stars ignore this?

Because if they didn't ignore this, they would actually have to do the work of showing that their god exists.  They can't, so they have no choice but to attempt the old fashioned burden shifting technique.

That's ironic, since the only real conceivable reason atheists attempt this 'lack of belief' thing is in desperation to avoid discussion of their own view.


The burden isnt automatically stuck on theists. Burden of proof throwing is a classless and low brow tactic. It's essentially a contractual thing--agreement must be reached between two consenting parties. It's not a dialectical weapon to hit others with.


Really despise when discussions devolve into "You have the burden of proof!"

[Atheist in Louisiana]

Why do WLC and the philosophical apologist all-stars ignore this?

Because if they didn't ignore this, they would actually have to do the work of showing that their god exists.  They can't, so they have no choice but to attempt the old fashioned burden shifting technique.

That's ironic, since the only real conceivable reason atheists attempt this 'lack of belief' thing is in desperation to avoid discussion of their own view.

That's a wonderful demonstration of your inability to use your imagination.  Your inability to conceive of other reasons has no bearing on how I use terms.

The burden isnt automatically stuck on theists. Burden of proof throwing is a classless and low brow tactic. It's essentially a contractual thing--agreement must be reached between two consenting parties. It's not a dialectical weapon to hit others with.


Really despise when discussions devolve into "You have the burden of proof!"

Perhaps you should read more about the philosophic burden of proof.  Here is a little excerpt: "When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim."  You have the burden of proof!

[searcherman]

Why do WLC and the philosophical apologist all-stars ignore this?

Because if they didn't ignore this, they would actually have to do the work of showing that their god exists.  They can't, so they have no choice but to attempt the old fashioned burden shifting technique.

That's ironic, since the only real conceivable reason atheists attempt this 'lack of belief' thing is in desperation to avoid discussion of their own view.


The burden isnt automatically stuck on theists. Burden of proof throwing is a classless and low brow tactic. It's essentially a contractual thing--agreement must be reached between two consenting parties. It's not a dialectical weapon to hit others with.


Really despise when discussions devolve into "You have the burden of proof!"

Your argument is with a whole bevy of apologists who helped inform the definitions above. I've already cited my sources of that in other posts.

You have only to cite your indignation, your indulgent entitlement to make assertions, and not to be bothered with any intellectual responsibility.

[UnreasonableFaith]

The last two have no burden of proof whatsoever. Why do WLC and the philosophical apologist all-stars ignore this?

Actually I think it may be due to a rather loose format of those debates. It's apparent that they don't set a burden of proof before debates. When the title of debate is 'Does the god exist" than it indeed is ambiguous who has the burden of proof.

They should keep these short topics, they sound good, however full resolution should be more specified, for example:

"We have sufficient amount of evidence to treat the existence of god as established fact"

Or they should discuss it behind the scenes and simply say what's what:

"Burden of proof is on dr. Craig to prove that god exists, or at elast most likely exists. He can use whatever kind of evidence, proof or argument he wishes. His opponent will try to show why presented arguments are invalid, unsound or otherwise flawed so that they can't be used to justify a belief in god, plus he can also put forward his own argument against the existence of god which dr. Craig should rebut"

That's how it usually works when it comes to debating any claim.

[lucious]

Why do WLC and the philosophical apologist all-stars ignore this?

Because if they didn't ignore this, they would actually have to do the work of showing that their god exists.  They can't, so they have no choice but to attempt the old fashioned burden shifting technique.

That's ironic, since the only real conceivable reason atheists attempt this 'lack of belief' thing is in desperation to avoid discussion of their own view.

That's a wonderful demonstration of your inability to use your imagination.  Your inability to conceive of other reasons has no bearing on how I use terms.

The burden isnt automatically stuck on theists. Burden of proof throwing is a classless and low brow tactic. It's essentially a contractual thing--agreement must be reached between two consenting parties. It's not a dialectical weapon to hit others with.


Really despise when discussions devolve into "You have the burden of proof!"

Perhaps you should read more about the philosophic burden of proof.  Here is a little excerpt: "When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim."  You have the burden of proof!

You've been chided for this childish burden of proof throwing before, and still don't get it. It's not something you throw at a dialectical opponent.

The BOP is not a principle or axiom of logic--it's a contractual thing. It applies to dialectical scenarios, like debates and discussions, with two consenting parties. We both assert claims the other disputes, and we both have some stance on the issue, therefore we both have burdens, which will shift back and forth as the debate progresses. Closure will be reached when one party is unable to satisfactorily respond.


The ridiculous notion that a burden of proof applies to any claim whatsoever would leave only someone in a catatonic trance, saying and doing nothing, without a burden of proof.

It's time to retire this absurd concept that atheism is this nothing-position with no claims, no beliefs like a cognitive void.

[Atheist in Louisiana]

That's right, the burden of proof is only applicable if you want to convince someone that you're right.  That's exactly what an argument is.  If you're not interested in convincing me that you're right, then you have no argument, including the Kalam.  The moment you put forth the Kalam, you're trying to convince me that the Kalam is true.  That's your contractual obligation to prove those claims.  If you don't care if anyone accepts the Kalam as true, then that's fine, don't back up your claims, but remember that you lose your right to claim that the Kalam is true.

As long as you're putting forth some argument, like the Kalam, you're taking on the burden of proof.

[searcherman]

[lucious]

That's right, the burden of proof is only applicable if you want to convince someone that you're right.  That's exactly what an argument is.  If you're not interested in convincing me that you're right, then you have no argument, including the Kalam.  The moment you put forth the Kalam, you're trying to convince me that the Kalam is true.  That's your contractual obligation to prove those claims.  If you don't care if anyone accepts the Kalam as true, then that's fine, don't back up your claims, but remember that you lose your right to claim that the Kalam is true.

As long as you're putting forth some argument, like the Kalam, you're taking on the burden of proof.

The burden of proof will be equally distributed amongst both parties. The BOP will only arise in a dialectical context, like a debate or a discussion. The BOP can only apply if the two parties are consenting, have clearly contrary positions, a clearly defined topic, and can hash out a fair agreement.


The BOP is certainly not to psychological coerce a doubter or skeptic. This brings personal psychology into it and deviates far from objective, academic scrutiny. To put it in short, the BOP is really more about presenting a stronger case than the opponent, not to convince him personally. It's noones job to personally satisfy any one individual, that is ridiculous. You, nor any other, has some hallowed sacred ground which is the ab initio rational default, where the soundness of an argument depends on your acceptance. You don't transcend the discussion nor do you have a value or commitment free view from nowhere.

[Atheist in Louisiana]

You're just wrong.  Me doubting that your argument is correct does not put a burden on me to prove you wrong.  You don't get the luxury of being assumed right until someone proves you wrong.

If I try to convince you that no gods exist, and you doubt one of my premises, that's all you have to say.  Then it is my burden to prove the validity and soundness of my argument.  If I put forth the argument of divine hiddeness, I have the burden to prove it.  If I can't, you are justified in not accepting it as proof that god doesn't exist.  Under no circumstances can I try to force you to accept my argument as true until you can prove it false.  It simply doesn't work that way. 

Why do you think atheists almost always back off of the claim that no gods exist when they are pressed?  We might be able to prove that some specific god doesn't exist, but all gods? Heck no, we can't prove it, so we back off the claim.  We're honest about the burden of proof and what it means.  Ironically, we get flack from the theists for it.

[lucious]

You're just wrong.  Me doubting that your argument is correct does not put a burden on me to prove you wrong.  You don't get the luxury of being assumed right until someone proves you wrong.

If I try to convince you that no gods exist, and you doubt one of my premises, that's all you have to say.  Then it is my burden to prove the validity and soundness of my argument.  If I put forth the argument of divine hiddeness, I have the burden to prove it.  If I can't, you are justified in not accepting it as proof that god doesn't exist.  Under no circumstances can I try to force you to accept my argument as true until you can prove it false.  It simply doesn't work that way. 

Why do you think atheists almost always back off of the claim that no gods exist when they are pressed?  We might be able to prove that some specific god doesn't exist, but all gods? Heck no, we can't prove it, so we back off the claim.  We're honest about the burden of proof and what it means.  Ironically, we get flack from the theists for it.

I, nor any other theist here, assumes a position or a premise is true because it hasn't been proven false. Your characterisations are false and demeaning.

[Dogbyte]

That's right, the burden of proof is only applicable if you want to convince someone that you're right.  That's exactly what an argument is.  If you're not interested in convincing me that you're right, then you have no argument, including the Kalam.  The moment you put forth the Kalam, you're trying to convince me that the Kalam is true.  That's your contractual obligation to prove those claims.  If you don't care if anyone accepts the Kalam as true, then that's fine, don't back up your claims, but remember that you lose your right to claim that the Kalam is true.

As long as you're putting forth some argument, like the Kalam, you're taking on the burden of proof.

The burden of proof will be equally distributed amongst both parties. The BOP will only arise in a dialectical context, like a debate or a discussion. The BOP can only apply if the two parties are consenting, have clearly contrary positions, a clearly defined topic, and can hash out a fair agreement.


The BOP is certainly not to psychological coerce a doubter or skeptic. This brings personal psychology into it and deviates far from objective, academic scrutiny. To put it in short, the BOP is really more about presenting a stronger case than the opponent, not to convince him personally. It's noones job to personally satisfy any one individual, that is ridiculous. You, nor any other, has some hallowed sacred ground which is the ab initio rational default, where the soundness of an argument depends on your acceptance. You don't transcend the discussion nor do you have a value or commitment free view from nowhere.

That was put nicely. I have no problem with someone shirking their share of the burden, if they refrain from making any assertions, but obviously that's silly, and not what anyone would call a discussion or debate. Why is it a misunderstood thing, that even a questioner give reasons for his doubts?   

[searcherman]

That's right, the burden of proof is only applicable if you want to convince someone that you're right.  That's exactly what an argument is.  If you're not interested in convincing me that you're right, then you have no argument, including the Kalam.  The moment you put forth the Kalam, you're trying to convince me that the Kalam is true.  That's your contractual obligation to prove those claims.  If you don't care if anyone accepts the Kalam as true, then that's fine, don't back up your claims, but remember that you lose your right to claim that the Kalam is true.

As long as you're putting forth some argument, like the Kalam, you're taking on the burden of proof.

The burden of proof will be equally distributed amongst both parties. The BOP will only arise in a dialectical context, like a debate or a discussion. The BOP can only apply if the two parties are consenting, have clearly contrary positions, a clearly defined topic, and can hash out a fair agreement.


The BOP is certainly not to psychological coerce a doubter or skeptic. This brings personal psychology into it and deviates far from objective, academic scrutiny. To put it in short, the BOP is really more about presenting a stronger case than the opponent, not to convince him personally. It's noones job to personally satisfy any one individual, that is ridiculous. You, nor any other, has some hallowed sacred ground which is the ab initio rational default, where the soundness of an argument depends on your acceptance. You don't transcend the discussion nor do you have a value or commitment free view from nowhere.

That was put nicely. I have no problem with someone shirking their share of the burden, if they refrain from making any assertions, but obviously that's silly, and not what anyone would call a discussion or debate. Why is it a misunderstood thing, that even a questioner give reasons for his doubts?

As someone who denies "that the Divine can be known to exist", I see that I have zero BoP. I can poke holes in your arguments asserting knowability, but that really isn't BoP. I can however understand how someone might think it's reasonably knowable, even though I think there is a perfectly naturalistic explanation for that feeling.