Thank goodness someone took the time to explain to you why the labels apply.
Someone didn't. That's a fallacy in and of itself.
-
League Of Reason Forums will shut down 10th September 2025.
There is a thread regarding this in General Discussion.
What is Atheism?
- Thread starter AronRa
- Start date
Someone didn't. That's a fallacy in and of itself.
FelixChaser
New Member
For those interested in a different perspective, you might enjoy this video:
I agree with some aspects of it, and disagree with others, but thought it be worth sharing here, given its relevance to the topic.
I agree with some aspects of it, and disagree with others, but thought it be worth sharing here, given its relevance to the topic.
Led Zeppelin
Active Member
Atheism is when you go around acting like you know everything because you pretend you use science to guide every step of your life.
Le sigh.
So let's engage in the same level:
Christianity is where you get a hard on talking to the ceiling believing some man in the sky created the universe just to listen to your overweening narcissism.
Or, you know, we could all do a little better, well, frankly, a lot better on your part.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
@AronRa
In the Bible, there is a disagreement whether it is by works or grace alone that gets one into heaven. Augustine was the one who "championed" grace, as I recall.
@All
There seems to be some confusion over words in English beginning with the letter "a".
It is only Greek words in English that start with the letter "a" where it means "without" - this does not apply to any other word in English.
@FelixChaser
The fact that both terms - atheism and theism - came into usage "in the wrong order" does not negate the fact that they derive from Greek origins.
Only their meanings have become more restricted;
Atheism, in the original Greek, applied to those whose behaviour was ungodly as well as lacked belief - when it entered French, it simply meant "without belief". It is this meaning that has become the general usage in English. Perhaps the usage is different in Australia, or just in your experience!?
As has been noted, the majority of people use general dictionaries, not specialist philosophical ones.
I disagree with the need to use some other term in its stead.
Kindest regards,
James
@AronRa
In the Bible, there is a disagreement whether it is by works or grace alone that gets one into heaven. Augustine was the one who "championed" grace, as I recall.
@All
There seems to be some confusion over words in English beginning with the letter "a".
It is only Greek words in English that start with the letter "a" where it means "without" - this does not apply to any other word in English.
@FelixChaser
The fact that both terms - atheism and theism - came into usage "in the wrong order" does not negate the fact that they derive from Greek origins.
Only their meanings have become more restricted;
Atheism, in the original Greek, applied to those whose behaviour was ungodly as well as lacked belief - when it entered French, it simply meant "without belief". It is this meaning that has become the general usage in English. Perhaps the usage is different in Australia, or just in your experience!?
As has been noted, the majority of people use general dictionaries, not specialist philosophical ones.
I disagree with the need to use some other term in its stead.
Kindest regards,
James
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
I delivered my thoughts on this some years ago. Possibly I should go back and see if there are things I'd say differently now, but here it is anyway:
www.hackenslash.co.uk
I do recall that one of the critical things I talk about there is the asinine but ubiquitous notion that dictionaries are authorities on what words mean, which is a fallacy twofer. If dictionaries were prescriptive, we'd still be left with Samuel Johnson's definition of oats (which I might well have included in the post'; edit: I didn't, so here it is. Oats: a grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people), which would be absurd in the highest degree. Dictionaries describe usage, but they're always subservient to semantics which, far from being a fallacy, is one of the most important disciplines in thought.
I also treat common definitions of 'agnostic' and show that there's really only one definition that has utility. The common definition, that of 'not knowing' is entirely redundant, because nobody knows. In particular, I advocate for the definition of 'agnostic' as somebody who thinks it isn't possible to know. I further posit, based on this, that we should all be gnostic - i.e., that it's possible to know - about interventionist conceptions of deity, because it should definitely be possible to see evidence of their interventions.
Anyhoo, there it is.
Are Babies Atheists? Semantics and Communication.
It often occurs in certain discussions that atheism must adhere to this or that definition, and that any definition other than the one being...
I do recall that one of the critical things I talk about there is the asinine but ubiquitous notion that dictionaries are authorities on what words mean, which is a fallacy twofer. If dictionaries were prescriptive, we'd still be left with Samuel Johnson's definition of oats (which I might well have included in the post'; edit: I didn't, so here it is. Oats: a grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people), which would be absurd in the highest degree. Dictionaries describe usage, but they're always subservient to semantics which, far from being a fallacy, is one of the most important disciplines in thought.
I also treat common definitions of 'agnostic' and show that there's really only one definition that has utility. The common definition, that of 'not knowing' is entirely redundant, because nobody knows. In particular, I advocate for the definition of 'agnostic' as somebody who thinks it isn't possible to know. I further posit, based on this, that we should all be gnostic - i.e., that it's possible to know - about interventionist conceptions of deity, because it should definitely be possible to see evidence of their interventions.
Anyhoo, there it is.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
I disagree with this.
The burden of proof is always on the affirmative claim. If you think about it, it could hardly be otherwise.
If you were to declare that the Oort cloud* is composed entirely of teddy bears, and I say 'no, it bloody well isn't', have I shouldered a burden of proof? Of course not, not least because the burden on the affirmative hasn't been met.
At the risk of being accused of the etymological fallacy, the full Latin moniker for the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof is Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat, which translates directly into English as 'the burden of proof is incumbent on him who affirms, not him who denies'. If you think about it, it must be the case, because a negating claim in the absence of an affirmative claim is absurd.
There is a case in which the burden of proof seems to shift, but it's really a change in affirmative claim, and that's when the affirmative claim has already been proven or put on a sound evidential footing, at which point denying the affirmative and well-supported claim becomes the affirmative claim that the evidence/proof is wrong or flawed.
This is a subtlety oft-overlooked, and I see many instances of the burden being accepted by the negating claim just because they think that having argued that the affirmative claim is bullshit means they've shouldered a burden which is not nor was it ever theirs.
*For the sake of this exposition, we're assuming arguendo that the composition of the Oort cloud is not known, which would be a factually incorrect assumption.
Looking back, I agree it wasn't well worded.
My point was concerned with a more formal debate structure. If I were - for some reason - to state the contention 'no gods exist' and make that the proposition, then as in any debate I'd be expected to bring more than just the statement to the discussion.
I appreciate that usually the affirmative position is formulated grammatically as a positive (i.e. god(s) exist) and didn't express clearly the context in which I meant this point, that it wouldn't be a sensible idea to stake such a proposition in the first instance. But that doesn't actually stop people doing it - I've seen people do it many times over the years.
I didn't mean to suggest that the burden of proof is on the non-believer when rejecting an affirmative claim that gods exist; generally the claimant has a higher standard of evidence to meet as much to overcome the null hypothesis as the opponent.
So if I want to claim there's a teapot orbiting Mars, you'd rightly be able to reject out of hand such a claim if evidence is absent - if there is no available evidence, how can the claimant know?
But if I were to stake a proposition in a debate contending there was no teapot orbiting Mars, I'd run into the problem of never actually being able to validate that claim either.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Certainly. It's about how the proposition is formulated.
That is, in fact, why formal debate is structure the way it is, with the affirmative going first, so that he can attempt to fulfil the onus, with the negating position's work being to grill the affirmative to find the flaws.
Of course, debate has become more of a spectator sport than a means of getting to true propositions, a bit like mathematics used to be.
To anybody surprised at the suggestion that mathematics used to be a spectator sport, you're not alone.; I was too. There's a really wonderful guest post about the history of the foundations of mathematics on my blog by Phil Scott (a.k.a. Vazscep), a dear friend of ours and a truly brilliant mathematician and computer scientist.
That is, in fact, why formal debate is structure the way it is, with the affirmative going first, so that he can attempt to fulfil the onus, with the negating position's work being to grill the affirmative to find the flaws.
Of course, debate has become more of a spectator sport than a means of getting to true propositions, a bit like mathematics used to be.
To anybody surprised at the suggestion that mathematics used to be a spectator sport, you're not alone.; I was too. There's a really wonderful guest post about the history of the foundations of mathematics on my blog by Phil Scott (a.k.a. Vazscep), a dear friend of ours and a truly brilliant mathematician and computer scientist.
I can't recall who it was, but it was a then quite familiar poster on RS who started off something like:
"Gods don't exist, prove me wrong" - now, that's not quoted word for word, but the general idea was the same. This is of course problematic: it's not possible to stake a contention and expect others to invalidate the claim. If the claim is going to be staked, it needs to offer support itself.
Of course, it's quite possible to support this proposition in terms of standard justification:
i) historical lack of evidence
ii) widespread contradictions on characteristics of gods
iii) provably false claims made about the purview or powers of the gods
iv) absence of necessity of gods to explain phenomena
A series of sound arguments can be made to justify the position that there are no gods, but the opponent doesn't actually in this case have any obligation to show that there is a god, all they have to do is show that the justification used in the affirmative is weak or flawed.
Of course, I agree that debates are generally performative style over substance regardless, but still there are some obligations in order to take part.
"Gods don't exist, prove me wrong" - now, that's not quoted word for word, but the general idea was the same. This is of course problematic: it's not possible to stake a contention and expect others to invalidate the claim. If the claim is going to be staked, it needs to offer support itself.
Of course, it's quite possible to support this proposition in terms of standard justification:
i) historical lack of evidence
ii) widespread contradictions on characteristics of gods
iii) provably false claims made about the purview or powers of the gods
iv) absence of necessity of gods to explain phenomena
A series of sound arguments can be made to justify the position that there are no gods, but the opponent doesn't actually in this case have any obligation to show that there is a god, all they have to do is show that the justification used in the affirmative is weak or flawed.
Of course, I agree that debates are generally performative style over substance regardless, but still there are some obligations in order to take part.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
I agree, that's just daft.
My contention is only that no burden is shouldered in the negating position. That statement is internally contradictory anyway, because it defines a standard in the enjoinder not present in the declarative, i.e., it's insisting on a fully deductive support for in response to a declarative that isn't deductively supported, rendering it internally inconsistent.
I suppose, at bottom, it's the possible ways that 'affirmative' can be interpreted. I treat an affirmative as a subset of the declarative. I think people often think of the affirmative and the declarative as the same, leading them to treat the fallacy as 'the onus of proof is on him who declares, not him who denies', which is an easy trap to fall into, not least because, as the statement you provided shows, the negation is also a declarative.
The negating declarative cannot exist in any sensible fashion absent the prior existence of the affirmative. That is, in fact, the logical basis of our insistence on terms being robustly defined. If somebody says, 'god exists', I have no idea of what they just said. Of course, 'god' looks a lot like a term that's been defined but, as you and I know from voluminous real-world experience, its semantic purpose is entirely to avoid being pinned down on definition. That's why we can demolish certain arguments by substituting that undefined term with some gibberish of our own choosing, my personal favourite always having been 'furzlewurgle'. If I were to declare confidently that furzlewurgle doesn't exist, I wouldn't be making sense, not just because of the lack of definition, but also because negation is entirely contingent on affirmation.
Not sure if I cleared anything up or merely served further to muddy the waters, but it's nice to ramble occasionally.
It's actually one of my favourite claims because, the more I think about it, the more confused those 2 words and their relationship to one and other become!
It's like a routine form of begging the question was too long-winded - we can't wait until the conclusion to assume the truth of that conclusion via the premises, we also want to stack more assumed conclusions into the only two words of the premise itself.
What exists? <this thing> 'thing exists'. What is a thing that doesn't exist? That there's <thing> at the outset already assumes the existence of said <thing> so why the repetition, what meaning is added? It's basically a trap of language, a grammatical well they fall down too busy looking upward for inspiration.
I also enjoy the notion of this still remaining a popular argumentation today after centuries of theologians deeply contemplating the nature of divinity as it actually feels something similar to the behavior of a young child who's just begun to speak, and feels awfully pleased with themselves wandering around declaring the nouns of things.
Uncharitably, of course, I do have to point out that we'd correct a child if they pointed at no apparent thing and stated a label, because that's not really how we use language and we wouldn't want our children to misapprehend that core component of communication.
Ramble on, dear sir!
surreptitious75
New Member
God is metaphysical by definition
That which is metaphysical cannot be detected
Therefore Gods existence cannot be detected
This does not mean that God does not exist but that such existence cannot be determined
The statement God exists therefore is fallacious because the truth claim cannot be determined even if it is true
So the default position is to neither accept or reject the truth claim but to simply let it be as that is all one can do
The same principle applies regardless of whether the claim is metaphysical or not as all claims must be treated equally
However the word metaphysical cannot be rigorously defined because human minds cannot truly comprehend such an unknowable concept as this
For how can one comprehend that which exists outside of space and time and has no property or dimension as such that can actually be detected
But even though it is incomprehensible it is also unfalsifiable hence why the default position is to let it be
So when the claim is made I do not question it because from a logical perspective it is entirely superfluous
One can of course question the claim if one wants to but it is not absolutely necessary to do so
That which is metaphysical cannot be detected
Therefore Gods existence cannot be detected
This does not mean that God does not exist but that such existence cannot be determined
The statement God exists therefore is fallacious because the truth claim cannot be determined even if it is true
So the default position is to neither accept or reject the truth claim but to simply let it be as that is all one can do
The same principle applies regardless of whether the claim is metaphysical or not as all claims must be treated equally
However the word metaphysical cannot be rigorously defined because human minds cannot truly comprehend such an unknowable concept as this
For how can one comprehend that which exists outside of space and time and has no property or dimension as such that can actually be detected
But even though it is incomprehensible it is also unfalsifiable hence why the default position is to let it be
So when the claim is made I do not question it because from a logical perspective it is entirely superfluous
One can of course question the claim if one wants to but it is not absolutely necessary to do so
Last edited:
surreptitious75
New Member
False conflation between atheism and science
Atheism is the non acceptance of a specific truth claim with regard to a specific being
Science is the study of observable phenomena through employment of the scientific method
The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other at all and so should not be connected
Furthermore science cannot guide every step of your life because it does not offer guidance
Guidance comes from religion or philosophy not science as science is amoral
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Really happy to see you, brother.
I can see some issues, so let's see if we can tease them out.
First, whose definition? May we see the complete definition?
That's actually considerably more important than it might, at first glance, appear.
Why? Because without a complete definition, you can't be sure you haven't defined an absurdity, and that's true of every potential characteristic you might single out as necessary.
So, do we have a sufficiently complete definition of this 'God' entity?
I've never encountered anything even remotely close, and it isn't like there's been a time when I wasn't incredibly well-placed to encounter it had anybody come up with one. I've seen all the ones that apologists love to point to, like 'the god of classical theism', which tells me exactly nothing.
It is not the case that an interventionist conception of deity can be defined as undetectable, because intervention requires process, and process is detectable. No escaping that.
It's a logical quagmire, and looks silly on the face of it, but there are very good technical reasons for constructing predicates in this way, not entirely unrelated to the paradoxes arising from naïve set theory.
The default position on any claim is... drum roll... not to have assessed it.
That's it.
Whether you haven't assessed it because you haven't encountered it or because there's insufficient information to draw any conclusion on the claim doesn't impact this, which is why it's the default. The default only changes when the onus probandi has been met.
Damn, I've missed you, dude.
Really?
I can see some issues, so let's see if we can tease them out.
First, whose definition? May we see the complete definition?
That's actually considerably more important than it might, at first glance, appear.
Why? Because without a complete definition, you can't be sure you haven't defined an absurdity, and that's true of every potential characteristic you might single out as necessary.
So, do we have a sufficiently complete definition of this 'God' entity?
I've never encountered anything even remotely close, and it isn't like there's been a time when I wasn't incredibly well-placed to encounter it had anybody come up with one. I've seen all the ones that apologists love to point to, like 'the god of classical theism', which tells me exactly nothing.
Really? I think we're going to need to look at your operating definition of metaphysical. I don't see a specific logical problem with this statement as presented, but I'd certainly want to reserve the right to object later, particularly because this is directly in conflict with what most believers I've encountered would suggest is a necessary and even defining characteristic of their deity, which bring is neatly to...
And this is where the contradiction is made fully manifest, because I know the vast majority of believers do and have always believed that their deity intervenes in the world. This contradiction arises either through defining God as metaphysical or through defining metaphysical as undetectable, which is why I reserved the right to object.
It is not the case that an interventionist conception of deity can be defined as undetectable, because intervention requires process, and process is detectable. No escaping that.
The statement 'God exists' is fallacious because existence isn't a valid predicate. That's a technical point in predicate logic, though, a consequence of the notion that all predicates have referents, to the degree that the term 'God' is logically indistinguishable from the statement 'God exists', rendering the statement 'God exists' to be logically 'God exists exists'.
It's a logical quagmire, and looks silly on the face of it, but there are very good technical reasons for constructing predicates in this way, not entirely unrelated to the paradoxes arising from naïve set theory.
There's a lot of guff said about things like default positions, making it seem more deep and profound than it really is.
The default position on any claim is... drum roll... not to have assessed it.
That's it.
Whether you haven't assessed it because you haven't encountered it or because there's insufficient information to draw any conclusion on the claim doesn't impact this, which is why it's the default. The default only changes when the onus probandi has been met.
Which presents a bit of a problem. If you want to defined God as metaphysical by definition, you need a coherent definition of metaphysical. it's kind of how definitions work, by this sort of circular- and cross-referencing.
Well, you've just imbued it with characteristics in the immediate aftermath pf saying it was unknowable and that we couldn't truly comprehend is.
To be fair, nothing you can't define can ever be falsified. That's why the wibblers keep their definitions so incredibly woolly that, in now almost twenty years of activity in discussion of this sort with apologists of all stripe from the famous to the infamous, I've yet to encounter a definition that got me even a little bit closer to understanding what this god thing is and what one is supposed to do with it.
Damn, I've missed you, dude.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
Spar, you've just made an argument for God's existence!
P1: Saying a word implies that to which it refers exists;
P2: God;
C: Exists.
Kindest regards,
James
Spar, you've just made an argument for God's existence!
P1: Saying a word implies that to which it refers exists;
P2: God;
C: Exists.
Kindest regards,
James
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
The ontological argument for a god in fact.Greetings,
Spar, you've just made an argument for God's existence!
P1: Saying a word implies that to which it refers exists;
P2: God;
C: Exists.
Kindest regards,
James
surreptitious75
New Member
God is usually defined as being omnipotent and omniscient and outside of space and time
These are not physical limitations so are therefore metaphysical by definition - metaphysical being that which transcends the physical
Metaphysics is also a branch of philosophy so the existence / non existence of God is therefore a legitimate question for debate
Indeed the existence / non existence of anything whose existence / non existence cannot really be empirically demonstrated
No concept is outside of philosophical / metaphysical discussion that can be imagined by human minds and nor should it be
For the purpose of philosophy is to understand the nature of reality by using logic and reason and Socratic dialogue to question any truth proposition
God may be an entirely meaningless concept for atheists but it is not an entirely meaningless one for philosophy - actually the complete opposite
Therefore it is necessary for there to be some working definition of God otherwise debate is not possible so the topic then never gets discussed
So the onus is on theists to provide a definition as rigorous as possible and on atheists to provide a rejection of said definition equally as rigorous
These are not physical limitations so are therefore metaphysical by definition - metaphysical being that which transcends the physical
Metaphysics is also a branch of philosophy so the existence / non existence of God is therefore a legitimate question for debate
Indeed the existence / non existence of anything whose existence / non existence cannot really be empirically demonstrated
No concept is outside of philosophical / metaphysical discussion that can be imagined by human minds and nor should it be
For the purpose of philosophy is to understand the nature of reality by using logic and reason and Socratic dialogue to question any truth proposition
God may be an entirely meaningless concept for atheists but it is not an entirely meaningless one for philosophy - actually the complete opposite
Therefore it is necessary for there to be some working definition of God otherwise debate is not possible so the topic then never gets discussed
So the onus is on theists to provide a definition as rigorous as possible and on atheists to provide a rejection of said definition equally as rigorous
Last edited:
Spar, you've just made an argument for God's existence!
P1: Saying a word implies that to which it refers exists;
P2: God;
C: Exists.
Well, just goes to show what you can do when you have both the will and the ability to put words into a sentence while believing the resulting sentences decree reality. The will and the word: it's just what God did right at the outset to create the universe, after all!
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Paradoxical
Impossible in principle
Incoherent
Omnipotence is metaphysical?
Cool. Can you demonstrate a referent?
Not massively interested in legitimacy. Considerably more interested in veridical or epistemic value. That some idiots have thought such questions sufficiently interesting to warrant definition as a branch of philosophy in its own right doesn't make it any less idiotic.
If philosophy is the art of asking the right kind of question, metaphysics isn't philosophy, because there are no right kinds of question in metaphysics, because they're all fundamentally unanswerable, unless and until it can be demonstrated that 'metaphysics' has a referent.
This is one of those statements that really, really should make everybody sit up and think about the silliness of categorical statements. Empirically is the only method of demonstration by which things can be shown to exist.
You've been listening to the JamesTs of the world when you should have been paying attention to the Citos.
That's not the same as suggesting that it's useful or has, in fact, even a shred of utility. The only thing mnetaphsyics ever did for humanity was to give us a metric for precisely how far up one's arse one can fit one's own head.
No it isn't. The purpose of philosophy is to teach us how to identify the failures of our presuppositions.
It's meaningless as long as it isn't defined. Still waiting for that to happen.
Excellent. We're in agreement. Let's have a definition.
The problem is, of course, they haven't even provided a shitty one, they've danced around some characteristics they feel they have to have in order to make their preposterous arguments not quite so easy to utterly eviscerate with the tiniest bit of scrutiny - a venture in which, it should be noted, they've failed spectacularly - and a few things he definitely isn't.
We're sitting here waiting for the debate to start, and the affirmative position has yet to fulfil his first obligation, despite several millennia of empty blather.