Ask an atheist—but don't expect any straight answers!

[Guest]

CF Christian, Amen and Amen!

[Guest]

Not so. The agnostic could honestly say the first, without at all implying the second. The first statement is one of non-commitment. The other commits.

Well of course the agnostic could honestly say the first, because agnosticism is not a question of belief, it's a question of knowledge.

I don't think you're quite understanding the dichotomy here, man.

Atheism: Disbelief in God or gods.
Theism: Belief in God or gods.

Gnosticism: Belief that one knows that God exists.
Agnosticism: Belief that one does not know that God exists.

Belief != Knowledge, do you understand this?

You are, of course, suggesting that all people are agnostics, but in this, you can really only speak for yourself. Some people may actually know God.

I'm claiming that all people are agnostics. Yes, it's an inductive claim. So prove me wrong. Demonstrate that you know that God exists. In order for you to confirm your claim you would have to:

1. Believe that God exists.
2. Justify your belief.
3. God existing would have to be true.

I'm concerned with 2 and by proxy 3. Please demonstrate then your justification for the existence of God and prove the existence of God. By your immediate claim, the burden of proof rests upon you.

If you deny this, then you are not simply making the humble claim that you don't believe there is a God. In order to firmly deny that some people may in fact have met God, you would have to say "I know there is no God." If you do not know this, then you leave room for the possibility that others may have discovered what you have not yet discovered--viz., that there is a God.

I do deny that people actually know God. I deny their claims. They must prove their claims and if they don't then I don't believe their claims. It's pretty standard stuff, man.

I don't have to demonstrate omniscience in order to deny a claim that has not and as far as I know cannot be demonstrated to be true.

In determining whether you are actually an agnostic, rather than an atheist, it would be possible to define a starting point for discussion.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive! They both concern two different topics. One is knowledge of God, one is belief in God!

So, I am interested in knowing your position. Are you affirming that God does not exist, or only that you do not know whether God exists? Either position may be expressed by the statement, "I don't believe in God."

I believe that God doesn't exist and I don't know if God exists or not.

If you are professing agnosticism, I would ask what evidence you might accept to move you from the point of ignorance to the point of knowledge?

Valid evidence.

On the other hand, if you are indeed an atheist, I would ask another question--namely, where did you acquire your omniscience?

I don't require omniscience in order to believe that something doesn't exist, dude. Where did you get your omniscience in believing that purple rhino's from mars don't exist?

[Guest]

Asimov wrote:

I don't require omniscience in order to believe that something doesn't exist, dude. Where did you get your omniscience in believing that purple rhino's from mars don't exist?



I just finished reading many of these replies back and forth.

If you put out statements like this why are you even bothering to ask any one here why they believe what they do. If you can stand on this statement and want us to consider it and respect it , then it should be naturally reapplied back to you from any of us.....Why even ask us to support what we believe when you obviously don't believe you need to support what you believe to any of us.

Makes it kind of a moot point doesn't it? Just my thoughts Glow

[_Steve]

Asimov,

I have actually never encountered a rational person who claimed to have encountered purple rhinos on Mars. Have you? If I discovered that a significant percentage of educated and sane people were relating encounters that they had had with such creatures, I might begin to wonder about the deficiency of my own experience, though.

I have met many rational people (there have been millions in history, and hundreds in my circle of acquaintance) who have claimed to have met God. Many of the greatest philosphical and scientific minds in history have professed to have had experience with God. You seem to think they are wrong. Why?

There is no burden of proof resting upon the person who says he/she has a relationship with God, just as I bear no burden of proof for a claim that I love my children. There is nothing irrational about believing such a claim, nor is there any way of proving to another person that it is true (or false). I actually bear no responsibility to prove this to be true, to you or anyone else. Your ignorance or lack of belief is not my problem, it is yours.

For you to say that a rational person who claims to know God is mistaken in this claim is to assume that you know more about the matter of what that person has experienced than he/she does—which is not at all likely, and therefore the burden of proof lies upon you to prove that the person is delusional.

If that person is not interested in proving his/her faith to you, then they bear no burden of proof in the matter. They may be entirely contented to leave you to your ignorance.

If you wish to convince that person that the God he/she knows does not actually exist, then the burden of proof is yours. You've got an uphill climb. You obviously speak from a self-confessed ignorance about God's existence. Those who have been transformed by dynamic encounters with God will be hard to convince by your mere professions of ignorance.

On the other hand, if you are not interested in convincing Christians that the God they claim to know is imaginary, then you really don't have much reason to be debating at a Christian forum, do you?

I am sure that 99% of those who post at this particular forum are convinced theists (which is, I am sure, why you showed up here). Whatever arguments you have to prove that God doesn't exist should interest us all. You have provided none, and simply pretended that we have an obligation to prove something to you. I am not buying it.

Christians claim to know God by personal encounter. How will you disprove this? If you are not willing to present some evidence worthy of our consideration, then what imaginable reason exists for us to read your posts or respond?

Unlike those who spend their days at some forums I have visited, many of us have a life and do not prefer to squabble endlessly on the internet. I am in charge of this forum, and bear responsibility for the quality of the dialog that I allow here. I am determined to maintain a certain level of intelligent and mature dialogue here, so that those who are drawn to this kind of thing do not feel that they must go elsewhere to find it.

Therefore, if you have something to present for our consideration, present it. If not, then find someone with endless time on their hands—elsewhere.

[Guest]

If you can stand on this statement and want us to consider it and respect it, then it should be naturally reapplied back to you from any of us.....Why even ask us to support what we believe when you obviously don't believe you need to support what you believe to any of us.

Makes it kind of a moot point doesn't it? Just my thoughts Glow

Where did I say I don't believe I don't need to support what I believe to any of you?

As far as I know, this wasn't a discussion of whether or not God exists, but a debate regarding the definitions of atheism and agnosticism. I don't think Steve is correct and I've pointed it out to him.

I have actually never encountered a rational person who claimed to have encountered purple rhinos on Mars. Have you? If I discovered that a significant percentage of educated and sane people were relating encounters that they had had with such creatures, I might begin to wonder about the deficiency of my own experience, though.

Dodging the question.

I have met many rational people (there have been millions in history, and hundreds in my circle of acquaintance) who have claimed to have met God. Many of the greatest philosphical and scientific minds in history have professed to have had experience with God. You seem to think they are wrong. Why?

There have been for atheists as well, you seem to think they are wrong. Why are you appealing to authority and numbers here?

Not only that, but you're taking the generalized term for God and applying it to your own specific belief. God is defined in different ways by different people, with different characteristics.

There is no burden of proof resting upon the person who says he/she has a relationship with God, just as I bear no burden of proof for a claim that I love my children. There is nothing irrational about believing such a claim, nor is there any way of proving to another person that it is true (or false). I actually bear no responsibility to prove this to be true, to you or anyone else. Your ignorance or lack of belief is not my problem, it is yours.

In specific contexts, yes you do bear the responsibility. Don't claim knowledge of something if you cannot or will not demonstrate it.

Christians claim to know God by personal encounter. How will you disprove this? If you are not willing to present some evidence worthy of our consideration, then what imaginable reason exists for us to read your posts or respond?

I can't disprove it, the burden of proof isn't up to me to disprove your own claim. You're shifting the burden of proof.

Prove that purple rhinos from mars don't exist.

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. This is not the case. You can't assume the truth of a proposition without proof. If we could assume truth until disproven, we would be stuck with the ridiculous conclusion that anything we said to be true, must be true, and would only become false when proven false. Reread the ignorantiam law if you are still confused.

This error, above nearly all others, indicates a lack of knowledge of the tenets of logic. Those who commit it require remedial learning.

http://www.candleinthedark.com/logic.html

[Guest]

Asimov If you believe I was out of line in what I said to you I am sorry. AS I viewed what you were stating it came across to me in a different vein.

Glow

[Guest]

Asimov,

Has a truly miraculous event ever taken place? A simple yes or no will suffice. Thanks

[Guest]

I can actually prove that God does exist. However the proof requires a drastic measure on the part of the atheist. Any takers?

[_Steve]

Asimov,

One who asserts that he knows something bears no burden of proof unless he is attempting to prove his point to another. To know what you have seen, heard and felt—as the apostles claim to have done—is to possess knowledge. There is no need for argumentation, unless one insists upon convincing another of what he knows.

Throughout our discussion of definitions, you have assumed that an atheist merely "believes" one thing and that a theist simply "believes" another. If this is so, then, you are correct in saying that the theist would need better proofs than those provided by atheism to substantiate his beliefs—because everyone in question simply "believes" things (i.e., they have theories), and no one actually "knows" anything.

What you are not aware of is the fact that some theists actually "know" God, as they can know other people (like long-term "pen-pals" who send things to each other and respond specifically to each other, but who have never seen each other face-to-face).

Such personal acquaintance with God is not as uncommon as you might imagine. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, and many others have known God by personal acquaintance, as did the disciples of Jesus, and all true Christians (not just those who "believe" Christian ideas, but those who have been regenerated) ever since.

Like the man who can see color, in a community of blind men, the seeing man needs prove nothing to the others. Unless his sanity or honesty can be reasonably challenged, his testimony stands until refuted. If they deny that he sees something they have not seen, then they are declaring him to be either insane or dishonest. A man does not bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that he is honest or sane, especially if there is no evidence against him in this matter. His critics must prove against him what is not otherwise apparent.

I reject the definition of the burden of proof from the website you quoted. It simply does not agree with accepted procedure in assessing legal testimony. If two witnesses both say, "I saw Joe stab Bob," they are under no further obligation to prove that this occurred. They are only reporting what they saw. In such a case, the burden of proof rests upon Joe's attorney to prove that the witnesses are incompetent or liars.

You are applying the burden of proof to a scientific model, where no one actually knows the truth, and any speculative assertion must be fully proven before accepted. The existence of God does not fall within the realm investigated by natural scientists (God is not part of the observable creation), and therefore evidence for His existence will not be drawn from that discipline.

I am applying the burden of proof to a courtroom investigation, where witnesses exist and their testimony can be assessed. This is much more analogous to the case before us.

An evidentiary burden is an obligation that shifts in the course of the trial. If one party submits evidence that the court will consider prima facie proof of some state of affairs, an evidentiary burden shifts to the opposing party to present evidence to refute the presumption.

The testimony of credible witnesses provides prima facie evidence until it is refuted. Therefore the evidentiary burden rests with the atheist to prove them wrong.

Though you may fall back on your "purple rhino" analogy, you will only be weakening your case by doing so, and demonstrating that you have not yet grasped the nature of the inquiry. No one has yet testified to having encountered "purple rhinos on Mars"—and anyone who seriously claimed this would no doubt show various other signs of mental aberration—therefore there is no prima facie evidence for this absurdity. If there should ever arise such evidence, it would fall upon me to bear the burden of proof against it, if I had any wish to refute it.

As for the sanity of the witnesses, if you wish to call into question the mental acuity of people like C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, C. H. Spurgeon, Charles Finney, Werner von Braun, et al, you may freely do so—but not without raising serious questions about your own sanity or objectivity.

You quote my saying:

"I have met many rational people (there have been millions in history, and hundreds in my circle of acquaintance) who have claimed to have met God. Many of the greatest philosphical and scientific minds in history have professed to have had experience with God. You seem to think they are wrong. Why?"

Then you respond:

"There have been for atheists as well, you seem to think they are wrong. Why are you appealing to authority and numbers here?"

In ascertaining the truth, it is more helpful to know what millions of people claim to know, to have seen, and to have experienced, than to know what millions of people claim not to know. The voices of a trillion people sasying "We don't know" (in a court of law, for instance), would not equal the evidential value of two people saying, "We were there, and this is what happened."

Therefore, the case for God stands upon testimony of competent witnesses. Upon what does your position stand?

[Guest]

Asimov,

The following short material seems very appropriate for the specific context of yours and Steve's discussion:

The Meaning of Atheism
By: The Reverend Dr. Gregory S. Neal

On the Internet it has become very common for self-professed Atheists to define their position as being a simple lack of a god-belief and not as a denial of the existence of God. By claiming to affirm only a passive lack of a god-postulate, and by denying that they actively assert the nonexistence of deity, such Atheists conveniently absolve themselves from having to defend their position. In other words, they claim that there is a big difference between asserting: "I do not believe a deity exists" and "I believe a deity does not exist." The difference is supposed to be one of an active as opposed to a passive postulate: are they asserting that God does not exist, or are they claiming that they simply don't make a god-postulate? While this is obviously a major splitting of tiny little hairs, it is nevertheless the kind of argument that many Christians are encountering from Atheists on the Internet. Unfortunately, it is also an argument to which most simply do not have an adequate response. This article will offer a response based upon the etymological and contextual meaning of the word "Atheism." The focus will not be upon English definitions, but on the original word in its original language.

One usually finds the idea of "passive Atheism" articulated as if it were based upon the linguistic roots of the word "atheism." It is sometimes broken down like this:

"a" = no/not/without
"theism" = god-belief
therefore:
"atheism" = without god-belief.

This kind of linguistic argument is certainly one possible way of arriving at a definition for a word which has been derived from another language. One sees this kind of thing, from time to time, regarding lots of derived words (like "theology" and "archeology" and "anthropology.") Sometimes such derivations are accurate, but other times they are quite erroneous and reflect an unfortunate misunderstanding of the source-language. In this case those who have made the above argument regarding the meaning of "atheism" are, in effect, misunderstanding the use of such a process and, as a result, are producing an argument which is neither linguistically sound nor historically accurate.

It should be noted that the above method of determining a word's meaning works rather well when that word has been created by using roots and/or particles from another language (usually Latin or Greek). When and where there are no direct cognates in the primary language, the meaning of the new word in the secondary language is open to interpretation based upon this kind of morphological analysis. However, when the word has a direct cognate in, or is a pure transliteration from, the primary language it is that primary language's usage which always takes precedence in determining its meaning in the secondary language. As matter of lexicography, that is the case here.

The word "atheism" is a direct cognate -- in fact, it is a transliteration -- of the Classical Greek word atheos (here, written with English letters). Its meaning, as demonstrated in the writings of Aeschylus and Diogenese Laertius, is best expressed as: "one who disdains or denies God or the gods and their laws." (See Bauer, Walter. Greek-English Lexicon. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. p.20).

In Greek the particle "a" can certainly mean "without" or "lacking" in the passive sense and when related to passive verbs, but in the case of the Greek noun atheos "a" conveys the active sense of "reversal of essence" or "opposite of condition" or "inversion of meaning." Hence, in this case, it means the bipolar opposite of its root-word theos. If "theism" is the belief that deities exist, then "atheism" is the belief that no-deities exist. Please note the place of the negation particle: when applied to nouns it should always be linked with the object, not an implied predicate; that which is believed IN is being negated, not the act of believing which is implied in the noun. In other words, and as a matter of simple Greek grammar, an atheos is one who denies the existence of a specific deity or of deities in general. Since "atheism" and "atheist" are derived from this noun, their meaning in English should follow suit. It is, hence, a misunderstanding of Greek morphology for the act of believing to be negated by the linguistic particle "a."

This analysis is supported by the word's usage in Greek literature. Essentially, it is rarely (if ever) used of a simple failure to acknowledge deities; rather, it is almost always found in the active sense of direct opposition to such beliefs, or (most often) a particular expression of such beliefs. For example, when used of Christians by Roman authorities and other Greek writers (and it was) it generally referenced their active denial of the deities of other religions ... a practice for which early Christians were labeled "atheists" by their political and religious opponents. It didn't matter that such Christians held theistic beliefs regarding their own deity, what mattered was their refusal to be ecumenical and at least passively accept the existence of other deities. Their refusal to do this -- their active denial of the existence of other gods and, particularly, their refusal to at least offer the nominal sacrifice to the deity of the Roman Emperor -- got them branded as "atheists." As a penalty for such a serious breach of cultural and political etiquette, these early Christians were sometimes severely persecuted.

While atheists will assert their identity however they wish, their analysis of the construction of the word "atheism" as being simply a passive "without god-belief" is linguistically invalid. True, the sense of passive negation is, indeed, one which the particle "a" can convey; however, that particular sense is foreign to the grammar and historical usage of the noun atheos. In summary,

The particle "a" must be applied to the Greek word theos, not to the English word "theism," thus reflecting the negation of the object, not the predicate.
The passive negation of the theistic precept isn't attested to in the historic usage of the Greek word atheos.
Active negation of the theistic precept (either in general or in particular) is exceedingly common throughout Greek literature, thus reflecting the morphological formation of the word atheos.

As a result, it is inadvisable to use the word "atheism" to reflect a passive position. This observation need not govern how such atheists understand themselves: if they wish to affirm that they do not deny God's existence but, rather, simply make no assertion on the subject, that is all well and good. However, their continued use and re-interpretation of a word which linguistically means "active denial of the theistic postulate" is confusing. They should change the term which they use for their position, rather than attempt to change the lexical meaning of an ancient, long-established word.

The above should shed some illumination on the semantic argument which was cited in the beginning of this article. Their claim is that there is a big difference between asserting "I do not believe a deity exists" and "I believe a deity does not exist." Fundamentally, this argument is nothing but semantic nonsense. It is not just the splitting of thin hairs, it is the splitting of thin air. To demonstrate this, all one needs to do is just invert the argument; is the assertion "I believe a deity exists" any different from the assertion "I believe a deity does exist"? Clearly, the semantic value of such a distinction is zero ... and such is also the case for the Atheistic postulate. That they make their claim in order to avoid having to shoulder the burden of proof for their anti-theistic position is understandable: they desire to deny that God exists while, at the same time, denying that they have a burden of proof. They want Christians to prove their belief in God, but they don't want to have to prove their belief in the non-existence of God. In other words, they refuse to provide the evidence for their belief while severely criticizing Theists for failing to do the same. This is usually called "hypocrisy."