Theism, Agnosticism, and Atheism
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-10-2016, 11:26 AM (This post was last modified: 30-10-2016 11:55 AM by Velvet.)
RE: Theism, Agnosticism, and Atheism
(30-10-2016 01:16 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  No wonder you feel dishonest. You want to assume a position that is not defensible scientifically. But again, why try to have that position? By just rejecting god claims you have the same result: default position, god does not exist, until proven otherwise. Are you willing to disprove any possible silly god claim anyone could bring forth? Wait and let the theists bring their arguments for their claims.

You maybe misunderstood me, or I wasn't clear enough, but perhaps I'm unable to make it more understandable than it is, but I will try, one more attempt.

Quote:''You don't need to disprove, god, unicorns, Russel's teapot, Odin, etc. Why waste your time with that?~''

If you wish to not only dismiss (neutral stance), but also deny (negative claim) them, you actually need to disprove all those.

Is not that I ''want to assume'' or ''wasting my time'', is about integrity, if those are really your beliefs, the only way to be honest is to assume them and defend them (and not some other), regardless of scientific or philosophical defensibility, unless you are only sparring, then its really common to assume stances that one's doesn't actually hold. (that is, until someone convinces you that you are wrong, or you encounter new evidence, and you change your stance sincerely)

Is not about wanting, needing, spending time, or I specifically felling dishonest, I don't, as it was only an example, my point is only about intellectual honesty when debating and the usual practice of shifting stances to attack and defend with 2 different stances that are not honestly the same.

The belief in Yahweh non-existence is not the default position, the default position would be ''dismiss all claims until they meet their burden of proof'' they end up in the same result (in this case), but their core beliefs are very different.

Not having the belief that Yahweh exist =/= Having the belief that Yahweh doesn't exist.

Those are two very different stances in rhetorical terms.

1 Stance) IF you only dismiss all the claims of existence, until they meet their burden of proof, and sincerely that's it, that's the only reason you haven't accept Theism, because of lack of the evidence for the existence of God, then you are neutral.

2 Stance) IF, in your opinion, a being like Yahweh, as described in the bible probably doesn't exist, because he couldn't exist, because the bible is clearly bullshit, because he would necessarily be immoral, etc, etc, then you have arguments that deny Yahweh existence, imply that he is impossible/improbable/unlikely to exist, and you feel that those arguments convinced you, then you are NOT neutral, you actually hold a belief that Yahweh doesn't exist. You have encountered evidence for the non-existence of Yahweh, as it was enough evidence to convince you of his non-existence (this including the absence of evidence for existence when it could be safely assumed that, if existed, would necessarily have evidence of existence present, which counts as evidence of absence, like the worldwide flood)

But here is the problem: if you use arguments for the stance 2) to convince your audience that Yahweh doesn't exist, but then, when rightfully asked for a burden of proof, you withdraw to 1), saying that you're in neutral position and therefore you don't need a burden of proof, then you are being dishonest.

The same thing happens when any Theist uses the cosmological argument or any other argument that imply some force/energy/deity/cause that, if granted to be truth, would still not support his point anyway. (Unless he is ready to present us some way to jump from ''we do need a first cause'' to ''Yahweh is necessarily the only cause that could fit'' (never done before) so we can finally conclude ''We need Yahweh''.)

The only way to the debaters would not his dishonest by practicing this, is if they somehow haven't noticed that they were doing it, then they would not be dishonest.

PS: You can prove a negative, you just can't prove a negative with only absence of evidence for the positive, but you can prove a negative with evidence for that said negative.

PS2: The assertion ''You can't prove a negative'' is itself a negative.

EDIT: I apologize for the english mistakes that you might have found on this post, as I go deeper on technical or philosophical concepts my english doesn't hold in the same way. (I'm a Brazilian)

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Velvet's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: