ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[Scott Hebert]

I believe this is exactly the sort of post arryn was speaking of. You state your beliefs, but base them upon very little other than 'they are true'.

To be fair, I've seen very little on the opposite side of the argument besides 'This can't be true.' That, and patently unverifiable assertions that are logically impossible.

@scott: Where they believe it comes from does not much make a difference from the point of view of being a danger to society and themselves. Say Bob believes he can walk through fire unharmed because he has studied with the warlocks of Zaxxon, Fred believes that a god is putting a divine shield around him to walk though fire. How can you say Bob is more a danger?

I think this is a specious example. In EITHER case, what this person believes will not harm anyone else (though it may kill him). However, in other cases, there is quite a large difference. Say, in the idea that I can change your mind for you. Magic has no problem with this idea, but no miracle would do this (for that would abrogate Free Will).

IOW, what is possible with a miracle and what is possible with magic is quite different. Magic (normally) admits no theoretical limits.

[The_Tauren13]

Scott Hebert said:
To be fair, I've seen very little on the opposite side of the argument besides 'This can't be true.' That, and patently unverifiable assertions that are logically impossible.

The atheist makes no claims about gods, but simply observes what is observable and detects what is detectable. It is the theist who makes an existential claim (a claim that the thing described, a god, actually exists). The atheist makes no such claim, but maintains the default position: "I don't see any gods" (or, "I don't detect any gods"; or, "I don't conceive that gods exist"). "One cannot prove a negative, nor is that demanded in [the theistic] system of logic. Since negative is not susceptible to proof, the person posting the positive assertion has the burden of maintaining the assertion."* For this reason, it is the theist -- not the atheist -- who is responsible for backing up her or his claim. Though many atheists are able to provide very strong arguments for the nonexistence of a deity, it is not the atheist's job to make any case whatsoever. The reason for this is simple: Nobody can prove that a thing does not exist unless it cannot possibly exist (such as a square circle).

* Jon Murray and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, All the Questions You Ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists: With All the Answers (1982 ed.) vol. ii., p. 18.


this is from http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1110i.htm

[Scott Hebert]

The atheist makes no claims about gods, but simply observes what is observable and detects what is detectable.

Actually, the atheist claims that God does not exist. A theist (at the minimum) claims that God may exist. Of the two, the one that is the most radical, and least susceptible to argument, is the atheist's position.

Also, if the theists claim (as most do) that God is not directly observable or directly detectable, it should be obvious that someone who relies only on such methods will not find God. That does not mean they are correct.

It is the theist who makes an existential claim (a claim that the thing described, a god, actually exists). The atheist makes no such claim, but maintains the default position: "I don't see any gods" (or, "I don't detect any gods"; or, "I don't conceive that gods exist").

What you believe is the default position has not been the default position of mankind for most of its history. And yes, this opens the whole 'progress' can of worms.

"One cannot prove a negative, nor is that demanded in [the theistic] system of logic. Since negative is not susceptible to proof, the person posting the positive assertion has the burden of maintaining the assertion."*

Lovely. So the theist has to come up with evidence that the atheist can accept, when the atheist fully knows that he can reject anything and everything the theist says.

If someone is looking for something, not looking where it is most likely to find it is absurd.

For this reason, it is the theist -- not the atheist -- who is responsible for backing up her or his claim. Though many atheists are able to provide very strong arguments for the nonexistence of a deity, it is not the atheist's job to make any case whatsoever.

Please make a case for your assertion that atheism is the default position of mankind. That is a positive assertion, and one that I do not accept by its statement.

The reason for this is simple: Nobody can prove that a thing does not exist unless it cannot possibly exist (such as a square circle).

Heh. So how can you say that God cannot exist? You just said you can't prove it.

[The_Tauren13]

Scott Hebert said:
Please make a case for your assertion that atheism is the default position of mankind. That is a positive assertion, and one that I do not accept by its statement.

By the simple fact that god has never been physically detected in any way by anyone.

[Scott Hebert]

The_Tauren13 said:

By the simple fact that god has never been physically detected in any way by anyone.

That is the reason why YOU believe that God does not exist.

I can point to several thousand years of human history to show that people believed in the existence of God.

Also, people have claimed, numerous times and in numerous places (especially in the Judaic, Chritian, and Islamic faiths) that yes, God has been physically detectable.

These claims have been believed, in the main, for over 2000 years.

You claim that atheism, though, is the default position when discussing God. What you are doing, though, is simply rejecting the evidence that people have found.

Would you please restate your assertion in a way that does not simply dismiss the evidence as nonexistant?

[Arryn]

Scott Hebert said:

That is the reason why YOU believe that God does not exist.

I can point to several thousand years of human history to show that people believed in the existence of God.

Also, people have claimed, numerous times and in numerous places (especially in the Judaic, Chritian, and Islamic faiths) that yes, God has been physically detectable.

These claims have been believed, in the main, for over 2000 years.

You claim that atheism, though, is the default position when discussing God. What you are doing, though, is simply rejecting the evidence that people have found.

Would you please restate your assertion in a way that does not simply dismiss the evidence as nonexistant?

The Egyptians worshipped their gods for more than 2000 years. Longevity of a faith is not proof that you're right. People also make many many interesting claims. Some claim to be able to read minds. Some claim to be able to speak with the dead. Many believe those claims too. Sheer numbers of claims, or numbers of those who believe in them does not constitute valid evidence, either. Valid evidence is that which is measurable or quantifiable in some way. There is more evidence, and by far more solid evidence, for the existence of UFOs than for God. Yet, oddly enough, more people believe in God. It's not so odd when one understands that more people *need* or want to believe in God than they need or want to believe in UFOs.

[Scott Hebert]

Arryn said:
The Egyptians worshipped their gods for more than 2000 years. Longevity of a faith is not proof that you're right. People also make many many interesting claims. Some claim to be able to read minds. Some claim to be able to speak with the dead. Many believe those claims too. Sheer numbers of claims, or numbers of those who believe in them does not constitute valid evidence, either. Valid evidence is that which is measurable or quantifiable in some way. There is more evidence, and by far more solid evidence, for the existence of UFOs than for God. Yet, oddly enough, more people believe in God. It's not so odd when one understands that more people *need* or want to believe in God than they need or want to believe in UFOs.

As interesting as all of this is, how does it answer my question as to why atheism should be the default condition of mankind?

I agree that longevity of belief should not be the primary determinant of a belief's veracity. However, to ignore the fact that human beings have for the vast majority of their history been religious beings who have believed in God, is to court disaster.

Even ignoring history, does anyone know the % of people currently living on this planet who profess belief in some kind of God? I rather believe it will outnumber those who don't. If this is the case, then judging SOLELY by present population, belief in God should be considered the default, with atheism being the one on whom some burden of argument should fall.

Basically, I object to the stated belief that atheism should be able to get by with nothing more than the judging of claims of theism.

[quantum_mechani]

Scott Hebert said:

To be fair, I've seen very little on the opposite side of the argument besides 'This can't be true.' That, and patently unverifiable assertions that are logically impossible.

I think this is a specious example. In EITHER case, what this person believes will not harm anyone else (though it may kill him). However, in other cases, there is quite a large difference. Say, in the idea that I can change your mind for you. Magic has no problem with this idea, but no miracle would do this (for that would abrogate Free Will).

IOW, what is possible with a miracle and what is possible with magic is quite different. Magic (normally) admits no theoretical limits.

Exactly, there is very little argument for or against the existence of a god.

It is true, in this case the only dangers are to themselves, but that was one of the reasons BD gave for needing treatment. And you could easily extend it and say that they believed that they/a god had given the powers to everyone. I would say advocates of magic/miracles are just as likely to put limits on the powers. "Sorry, out of newts eye, no potions tonight","How am I supposed to teleport something made of iron?".

[Scott Hebert]

Exactly, there is very little argument for or against the existence of a god.

I do not believe I said that, or anything remotely resembling that. Please do not agree to overgeneralizations of my statements, as they will make people believe I said one thing when I did not.

And you could easily extend it and say that they believed that they/a god had given the powers to everyone. I would say advocates of magic/miracles are just as likely to put limits on the powers. "Sorry, out of newts eye, no potions tonight","How am I supposed to teleport something made of iron?".

But is the limitation moral in nature? There's also the question of the ability to command. Miracles, whatever people believe, cannot be called upon at will by humans, being as they are a special manifestation of God's will. One can ask for a miracle, and one may receive it in response to that asking, but the power is not human's.

Magic normally involves a formulaic ability to impose one's will on the surroundings. The distinction, that in miracles it is God's will, and in magic it is the human's will, is important.

And as for those people who believe they can command the power of God, or those that believe their ability for magic comes from elsewhere, I think they are confusing the idea of miracle and magic.

[The_Tauren13]

Scott Hebert said:
The distinction, that in miracles it is God's will, and in magic it is the human's will, is important.

So lets say I make a magical potion that prevents arthritis. Then lets say god makes a miracle that cures everyone of arthritis. Why is my potion so much worse?