Burden Of Proof

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Straw man. Omnipotence is an implied claim of a creator god just as "wings" are implied in airplane and "engine" is implied in automobile. Nope... your borrowing of Kame's watered down version of god is the cop out. You know omnipotence renders god false so you're doing everything in your little agnostic power to not have to admit this is a common attribute of god.

First, this "you're an agnostic" business is getting annoying. I do NOT believe that God's existence can never be proven, nor that God's nature is unknowable.
I merely lack a belief in God, which is the main definition of atheism. Thus, I am an atheist.
You, my friend, are also an atheist, but of a "stronger" or "harder" variety. You actively affirm that God does not exist.

Second, I was under the impression that we were operating under Kame's definition of God. That was settled quite a long time ago, I thought. Perhaps I'm wrong, and you only accepted his definition temporarily for the sake of argument; is that true?
Obviously, the definition of God is rather important if you're going to try to prove that he doesn't exist. What definition do your prefer? Know that you can't simply shift the definition of God wherever you wish either; make a set definition of God that we're debating here that won't allow you to simply say "it's implied" without showing exactly why your new definition directly makes that implication. Repeating for clarity: how do you wish to define God?

[Kamehameha34]

Zhavric, your argument fails until you explain how universal creation necessitates omnipotence. Now you can either defend your claim, concede, or keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. Your continuous copping out will not be entertained anymore.

I'll even write up your proposed syllogism for your convenience:

1. God created the universe.
2. Universal creation necessitates omnipotence.
3. God is allegedly omnipotent.

Premise #2, and therefore the conclusion is being challenged.


I'm assuming, however, that you're operating off of the standard definition for god - which necessitates only universal creation. If you're just arbitrarily attaching omnipotence, then I'll admit that my argument does not apply to it. I've no interest debating definitions that you set up for failure.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim First, this "you're an agnostic" business is getting annoying. I do NOT believe that God's existence can never be proven, nor that God's nature is unknowable. I merely lack a belief in God, which is the main definition of atheism. Thus, I am an atheist. You, my friend, are also an atheist, but of a "stronger" or "harder" variety. You actively affirm that God does not exist.

There is no such thing as "strong" or "weak" atheism. There's just atheists and agnostics respectively. The stances you've expressed on Volconvo indicate you're an agnostic. Not an atheist.

Honestly, you need to knock it off. You remind me of a vegan chick my girlfriend knows... who (the vegan chick) also eats stuff with eggs in it but still wants people to think she's vegan.

If you want to be an atheist than be an atheist. Stop spouting an agnostic stance and calling yourself an atheist.

For the second time, if you can't state "God does not exist" then you're not an atheist.

Second, I was under the impression that we were operating under Kame's definition of God.

ROFLMAO!!!1!!

Oh wow... just, wow... No, Kame's version of god is a tremendous cop-out that he uses to try to maintain his untenable agnostic (which is really a theistic / faith based) position.

Remember that "god exists and created the universe" is a scientific hypothesis. As such, it must be weighed against all other proven aspects of science... which would quite obviously make the god hypothesis false. Rather than accepting the god hypothesis is unproven and false, Kame keeps watering down god and saying silly things like "omnipotence isn't necessary for god".

Remember that god is a hypothesis we're using to try to explain the origin of the universe. The more detail we have the better a hypothesis it becomes. The less details the worse it is.

Could you imagine saying something like, "I hypothesize you flew from Boston to Cleveland in a plane. Wings aren't a requirement for that plane."

The very obvious question you should be asking is "How did a wingless jet get off the ground to fly?"

Could you imagine if the person making the claim said something as asinine as, "You're just adding unnecessary criteria."

Kame's definition is useless.

It makes little difference in the long run because any and every definition of god suffers from at least one critical flaw that makes it "false until proven true".

[Kamehameha34]

Remember that "god exists and created the universe" is a scientific hypothesis. As such, it must be weighed against all other proven aspects of science... which would quite obviously make the god hypothesis false. Rather than accepting the god hypothesis is unproven and false, Kame keeps watering down god and saying silly things like "omnipotence isn't necessary for god".

You make it seem like I've been slowly degenerating my definition for god.

It's always been the same, and the most common definition.

You're the one trying to add unnecessary elements, because your canned arguments fail.

Remember that god is a hypothesis we're using to try to explain the origin of the universe. The more detail we have the better a hypothesis it becomes. The less details the worse it is.

Less detail doesn't mean false. Why can't you understand that?

Here are two statements:

I am.

I am in a coffee shop at 9am on wednesday, July 4th, 2007.

Is the first one false because it is less detailed? No. Stop spouting off such nonsense.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric There is no such thing as "strong" or "weak" atheism.

What Is Strong Atheism?
Weak and strong atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism: What’s the Difference?

Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods. Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods — no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons. Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist. Because knowledge claims are involved, strong atheism carries an initial burden of proof which does not exist for weak atheism. Any time a person asserts that some god or any gods do not or cannot exist, they obligate themselves to support their claims. This narrower conception of atheism is often thought by many (erroneously) to represent the entirety of atheism itself. Because strong and weak atheism are often called “types” of atheism, some people develop the mistaken idea that these are somehow akin to “denominations” of atheism, not unlike denominations of Christianity. This serves the bolster the myth that atheism is a religion or a belief system. This is unfortunate, in particular because the label of “types” is not entirely accurate; rather, it is simply used due to a lack of better terminology. To call them different types is to imply on some level that they are separate — a person is either a strong atheist or a weak atheist. If we look more closely, however, we will note that almost all atheists are both on various levels. The primary indication of that can be seen in that the definition of weak atheism, lacking belief in the existence of any gods, is in fact that basic definition of atheism itself. What this means is that all atheists are weak atheists. The difference, then, between weak and strong atheism is not that some people belong to one instead of the other, but rather that some people belong to one in addition to the other. All atheists are weak atheists because all atheists, by definition, lack belief in the existence of gods. Some atheists, however, are also strong atheists because they take the extra step of denying the existence of at least some gods.

Emphasis added.

And now, agnosticism.

Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist — there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more “reasonable” position while atheism is more “dogmatic,” ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. Is this a valid position to take? Unfortunately, no — agnostics may sincerely believe it and theists may sincerely reinforce it, but it relies upon more than one misunderstanding about both atheism and agnosticism. These misunderstandings are only exacerbated by continual social pressure and prejudice against atheism and atheists. People who are unafraid of stating that they indeed do not believe in any gods are still despised in many places, whereas “agnostic” is perceived as more respectable. Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure. This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure — in other words, they may be an agnostic as well. Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not. Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism. It is also worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is “better” than atheism because it is less dogmatic. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists. On the other hand, if theism can be open-minded then so can atheism. In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn’t faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist.

So, when you say:

There's just atheists and agnostics respectively. The stances you've expressed on Volconvo indicate you're an agnostic. Not an atheist.

...you're completely wrong.

Oh wow... just, wow... No, Kame's version of god is a tremendous cop-out that he uses to try to maintain his untenable agnostic (which is really a theistic / faith based) position. Remember that "god exists and created the universe" is a scientific hypothesis. As such, it must be weighed against all other proven aspects of science... which would quite obviously make the god hypothesis false.

You've completely failed to demonstrate this. And I must point out that your "remember"-ed statement has NOTHING to do with the definition of God. Non-sequitir?

Remember that god is a hypothesis we're using to try to explain the origin of the universe. The more detail we have the better a hypothesis it becomes. The less details the worse it is.

If by "we" you mean "people who use God as a hypothesis for an origin of the universe" then sure.
Others don't share that goal. In fact, I don't suggest God as a solution at all. I don't believe that God exists; I have no reason to believe it.
But I also have no reason to believe that he doesn't exist. He very well might not, but I'm not going to jump the gun and say he doesn't just because it feels "better" or "more self-assuring" to be a hard atheist.

God isn't a scientific hypothesis in totality. Sure, some view it that way; some propose it that way. But in its pure form, the God "Hypothesis" is really just the set of two claims, "God exists" and "God does not exist."
Nothing necessary to explain with them.

[ZNFYRH]

So the short and simple summary is that a weak atheist doesn't have the burden of proof because they are saying they don't believe in God.

The strong atheist does have the burden of proof because they are saying that God doesn't exist.