Home

I view myself as being both agnostic and atheist. To see why, lets break down the words.

Agnostic (A = without, gnosis = knowledge)
Atheist (A = without, theism = god belief)

I cannot conclusively prove that a god doesn’t exist, therefore I don’t know, i.e., I’m agnostic. At the same time, no one has produced evidence to convince me that there is a god, so I’m without a god belief, i.e., I’m an atheist.

Here’s the kicker. I think that many people who claim to be agnostic are also atheists. Saying you don’t know doesn’t seem to be compatible with “I believe.” If you don’t believe, well…

That’s exactly what the article is about – the change of definition. You position yourself as exactly the kind of person Stuart is talking about. “Atheist” traditionally meant active non-belief. Somewhere along the line various folks decided to change that, and while the word itself correctly means “without belief in God” the change still represents a shift in thinking.

First let me say, kudos to Thinking Matters for tolerating dissent. Many religious sites conveniently omit dissenting posts. Stuart and I just finished a lively debate on The Argument from Evil. I appreciate having the opportunity to share more of my views, as unpopular as they may be. I also appreciate the intellectual insights gained by interacting with someone of your caliber.

On to my comment. I’m afraid I’ll have to challenge the notion that Silverman, Hitchens, and I are “taking the lazy man’s route of re-defining atheism.” I realize that atheism is commonly associated with strong denial. This is consistent with the position of some atheists, and the time-honored tradition of demonizing atheists from the pulpit.

However, I’m unable to internally reconcile that conception of atheism. When defining words, I’m well aware of the folly of common usage, as demonstrated by people who cherry pick contradictory definitions to fit their pre-conceived notions. Look up the word “atheist” in almost any dictionary (philosophical or otherwise), and you’ll see that we can both find supporting definitions to fit our conception of atheism. For example, the definition of atheism in my “Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy,” 2nd Ed. says, “A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism.”

When evaluating the meaning of a word, I try to focus on the word itself, rather than common usage. Let’s break down the components of the word atheist to expose its core meaning (A = without, Theism = god belief). Why should we let common usage (flavor of the day) supersede the core meaning of the word?

To further appreciate why I view myself as an atheist, please consider my situation. As a former Christian (I come from a family of ministers), my day-to-day life is now completely free of god belief. I don’t pray, I don’t contemplate whether big brother is watching, and I don’t worry about eternal consequences. I truly have no belief in the big guy in the sky, which is why I think I am an atheist. I’m guessing that fits your concept of atheism as well.

However, I also genuinely acknowledge that I cannot prove the non-existence of a god or gods (I have no such illusion). In fact I’ve debated other “strong” atheists on this point. As I’m sure you know, claiming that a god cannot exist is epistemologically unsound. I freely acknowledge that there could be a god or gods, and in my view, anyone who argues otherwise needs to spend more time studying epistemology. Therefore, I don’t know, which makes me agnostic.

As an agnostic, I’m unconvinced by the claims and evidence available to me, which is why I view myself as an atheist. So for me, the issue comes down to the validity of the reasons offered to support a belief in god or gods.

I don’t view this as being intellectually lazy. In fact I think I’ve tried much harder than most Christians ever do. As an atheist, I’ve read books written by Christians (including C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity,” which was intended to convert atheists). I’ve also read every page of the bible, cover-to-cover. As a lay person, I think that’s pretty good.

Outside of apologist circles, how many Christians do you know who have bothered to read their entire bible – the guidebook purportedly given to them by their creator? How many non-apologist Christians read books that strongly contradict their religious beliefs? The answer is almost none!

Lazy is not a word I would use to describe my approach to this issue.

Based on the preceding paragraphs, you tell me. Am I agnostic or am I an atheist. As noted in my previous post, I argue that I’m both.

formerly/formally"“What reason is there to think that Atheism is more reasonable than Theism?” "For the same reason that a-umpa-lumpaism is more reasonable than umpa-lumpaism."This claim, like any other positive assertion, needs philosophical justification."No. Any and every claim needs evidentiary justification.

Though I could offer many reasons by atheism is more reasonable than theism, the fundamental question to answer is; Does god (or do gods) exist? The truth of this question clearly determines which worldview is more reasonable.

Christians make numerous extraordinary claims, such as:

* I have an invisible friend who deeply cares about my thoughts and actions

* My invisible friend is real because an old storybook (the bible) says so

* If I want something I can think about it (pray) and get what I want

* The laws of physics are regularly violated by supernatural intervention

* When I die I don’t really die. Rather, I live forever

If you want other people to believe your positive assertions, then intellectually you’re required to prove it (as with science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence).

To better appreciate this issue, imagine that a curious extraterrestrial alien visited earth and was approached by various religious advocates. Here is the dilemma (recognizing that liberal believers tend to be more accommodating):

* Muslim – The only god is Allah. Believe in him or burn in hell

* Catholic – Non-Catholics are full of it. Join our church or burn in hell

* Baptist – Catholics (and non-Baptists) are full of it. Join our church or burn in hell

*Mormon – All other “Christians” are full of it. Join our church and you can be a god on your own planet

* Hindu – There are bunch of gods. Don’t piss them off.

* Etc., etc., etc., times THOUSANDS of gods!

What is the alien to do? These evangelists have mutually-exclusive beliefs, i.e., we’re right, everyone else is wrong. Many have their own special storybooks that they offer as proof of their beliefs, and they’re all certain that they are right.

The burden of proof lies with the advocate, not the deeply confused alien. The alien is an atheist by default. It’s unreasonable to expect her to prove that your extraordinary claims are false. In logical circles that’s called “Arguing from Ignorance.” (That’s not an insult – I’m correctly labeling fallacious thinking.)

Hi Bill Williams,

You say,

Based on the preceding paragraphs, you tell me. Am I agnostic or am I an atheist. As noted in my previous post, I argue that I’m both.

By refusing to use the formal definition of "Atheism" and instead construing the term as in common usage you are right – you are both. This is why I think this redefinition is profoundly unhelpful. Its obvious isn't it: if you define Atheism such that it can be consistent with agnosticism (I speak here of a soft-agnosticism) you'll get people, such as yourself, who fit into both categories.

If you were to use the traditional and formal definitions (preferred here given the context of a philosophy of religion forum) then I think you'll find you, for the most part, are an soft-agnostic. That is someone who simply doesn't know if God exists or not – an ignoramus with respect to God's existence.

It is said that agnostics make no claim, and so therefore do not need to make argument for their position. However, if rationality is going to be proffered to an agnostic informed of the suite of arguments for Theism, he or she would have to maintain that having no belief in God is more reasonable than belief in God. The only caveat to this I can think of is that the agnostic be equally informed of the arguments for Atheism and is similarly impressed, and so becomes unable to make up their mind. Still, they are in an extremely difficult position. As I have said above with respect to the new construal of Atheism:

[the reasonableness of their stance] relies on idea that all the arguments for Theism, such as the cosmological, teleological, axiological, ontological and historical arguments, etc., are unsuccessful [not only unsuccessful, but do not even generate general considerations in favour of Theism]. This lays a heavy burden on the Atheist [who is actually an agnostic] who now has to try and find reasons to either deny (highly plausible) premises or show an informal fallacy of some sort in [every one of] the arguments for God’s existence. This is an uncomfortable position to be in as it will always be on the back-foot – defensive mode.

So why the re-definition? What I suspect is the desire to escape the need of rational argumentation or philosophical justification. A lazy-mans out, so to speak. But as I have argued, this escape is unsuccessful.

Hello again Other Simon,

at the risk of covering ground already well-trodden

Stuart recomments asking: “What reason is there to think that Atheism is more reasonable than Theism?”

Other Simon answers the question: For the same reason that a-umpa-lumpaism is more reasonable than umpa-lumpaism.

And what is that reason. Spell it out really clear and make your argument. Here are some clues for you. Use a syllogism. Don't include the premise – we can't experience God with our senses (that would be a very lame argument).

Stuart: This claim, like any other positive assertion, needs philosophical justification.

Other Simon: No. Any and every claim needs evidentiary justification.

Interesting your should make that claim, Other Simon. (The immediate negation "No" is curious in itself, but I'll focus on the positive assertion following that, which I have italicised.) If it is indeed true then it must have evidentiary justification. Does this claim have evidentiary justification?

Bill Williams,

The alien should be, barring any prior commitments of her own, agnostic by default. I find its amusing that you forget the Atheist also approaches the alien saying, "Don't listen to them. They're all wrong. There is no God."

As you say, the burden of proof lies with the advocate, not the deeply confused alien.

(I'd be interested to know what your reasons are for thinking Atheism is more reasonable than Theism.)

(You see how clear this issue becomes without this bastardization of the terms?)

<blockquote cite="">It is said that agnostics make no claim, and so therefore do not need to make argument for their position. However, if rationality is going to be proffered to an agnostic informed of the suite of arguments for Theism, he or she would have to maintain that having no belief in God is more reasonable than belief in God. <cite>

Once again, this is the Argument from Ignorance. You’re taking the extraordinary position of placing the burden of proof on the agnostic, i.e., requiring doubters to disprove your unproven claims.

That position strongly violates the principles of argumentation and would not hold up in intellectual circles or in criminal testimony. Why do you think your position warrants special pleading?

You asked how I can think that agnosticism is more reasonable than theism. This is where your thinking goes wrong. As I noted in my previous post (#29), the fundamental question to answer is; Does god (or do gods) exist? The truth of this question clearly determines which worldview is more reasonable. If there is not strong evidence to support these extraordinary claims, then it is reasonable to continue doubting until the claims are proven.

To see why, imagine that you were told that space aliens regularly visit earth and do secret experiments on humans, sexual or otherwise (millions of people really believe this and thousands claim to have personal experience). You reasonably ask to see their evidence. They share numerous anecdotes, show you some supporting passages from an old book, and tell you about their enormous faith in alien visitation. Presumably you would doubt their unsupported claims.

Let’s see how your previous argument fits this scenario. The alien believers say that since you don’t believe their space alien stories, you are making a positive claim. You therefore have the burden to prove that non-belief is more reasonable than belief? (As you said about agnostics, “he or she would have to maintain that having no belief in God is more reasonable than belief in God.”)

I’m curious – how would you respond to their attempt to shift the burden of proof to you?

Note regarding my previous post

I unsuccessfully tried to quote the first paragraph. Those are the words of Stuart McEwing. The remaining paragraphs are my response.

hi Bill Williams,

Educate youself. From the infidels;

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.)

So what I'm doing is not an argument from ignorance. I'm not saying that theism is true because it hasn't been prooved false. I'm not sayog that atheism or agnosticism is false because it hasn't been prooved true. I'm sayin the agnostic informed of the arguments for theism, if he is to maintain that his position is more reasonable, needs to show why the case for theism is less so or the case for atheism is equally persuasive.

I want to affirm what you say here;

the fundamental question to answer is; Does god (or do gods) exist? The truth of this question clearly determines which worldview is more reasonable. If there is not strong evidence to support these extraordinary claims, then it is reasonable to continue doubting until the claims are proven. </blockquote >

Regarding your illustration using aliens;

They share numerous anecdotes, show you some supporting passages from an old book, and tell you about their enormous faith in alien visitation. Presumably you would doubt their unsupported claims.

It is a mistake to think the case for aliens is comprable to the case for theism. If it was, as you make out in your example, then yes, I would remain doubltful. That is not a positive claim. I would not make the claim that aliens do not exist – that would be an argument from ignorance. If I were to maintain that my doubt about aliens is more reasonable than belief in aliens, then I would have to make some arguments – either by showing how the case for aliens existing is defective or how the case for aliens not existing is equally persuasive.

I’m saying the agnostic informed of the arguments for theism, if he is to maintain that his position is more reasonable, needs to show why the case for theism is less so or the case for atheism is equally persuasive.

We agree on the definition of Arguing from Ignorance. Where we differ is your insistence that Christians and agnostics (doubters) are in comparable positions and therefore have the same evidentiary requirements. Consider this sequence:

1. Doubter, like all humans, is born a non-believer (our default state)

2. Christian makes an extraordinary claim (an invisible man exists)

3. Doubter asks for strong supporting evidence

4. Christian offers weak evidence

5. Doubter has no intellectual obligation to believe weak evidence and therefore continues in the default state of non-belief, i.e., no change.

Unlike the Christian, the doubter has not made a positive assertion. You’re unable to prove your extraordinary claims and are instead trying to force the skeptic to disprove them. To illustrate the absurdity of this tactic, let’s change the preceding points to a courtroom scenario:

1. Judge/Jury doesn’t believe the defendant is guilty (default “neutral” state)

2. Prosecution makes a claim (Col. Mustard committed the murder)

3. Judge/Jury ask for strong supporting evidence

4. Prosecution offers weak evidence

5. Judge/Jury has no obligation to believe weak evidence. The verdict: “Not guilty!”

From this case we can correctly infer that “not guilty” (non-belief) is more reasonable than believing an unproven extraordinary claim. “Not guilty” is not a truth claim – it’s the default neutral position. Yet you, the prosecution, insist that the case is not over. In your eyes, the court must now prove that believing that the defendant is not guilty is more reasonable than believing he is guilty.

Huh? Imagine a prosecutor losing a case and then demanding that the judge take the stand to prove his case. That’s an absurd expectation.

You’re assuming that your case is true because it hasn’t been proven false, i.e., you’re arguing from ignorance. You can’t shift that burden to the judge/jury, or for that matter, to the defense. You still have the burden to prove your unproven case.

You are so sure of your truth claims that you think your weak evidence is strong, and you see the rejection of your weak evidence (the court’s verdict) as a positive truth claim. That’s not how argumentation works.

It is a mistake to think the case for aliens is comparable to the case for theism.

The alien example closely mirrors your argument (agnostic non-believer, extraordinary claims, weak evidence, and an unreasonable attempt to shift the burden of proof). Why is this comparison a mistake?

Bill Williams,

Just quickly: you've made two mistakes.

In your first argument numerated above the premise which states "there is weak evidence" is false in the case for theism. There are a multitude of good arguments, including cosmological, teleological, axiological, historical, transcendental, etc. The case for theism should not be reduced to 1) I've experienced something, 2) an ancient book tells me so, 3) I have faith.

Second mistake;
In a courtroom, in order to protect against injustice, a principle is adopted called "innocent until proven guity." The idea is if the prosecution can't make their case then the convicted gets off, not by merit of the truth of the matter or their innocence, but by merit of, in the eyes of the law, it could not be proven otherwise. Your analogy to the cortroom scenario only works insofar as this principle is assumed. But in philosophy positive claims such as "innocence" are not permitted to walk away without evidence. All positive claims are on the stand, as it were.

It appears as if you miss the possitive claim implicitly made by the person who remains agnostic yet who is informed of the case for theism.

@Stuart,

Well, stated. I have often encountered the equivocation from perspective to psychological state in discussions about the "default position." I have long made the distinction between a "perspective position" and a "state position." Yet, unfortunately, most atheists want to pretend as though the distinction doesn't exist.

To be nit-picky…

1. Doubter, like all humans, is born a non-believer (our default state)

I think there may be cause, given the teaching of the Bible, to contend in someway with this premise. Specifically the idea that non-belief is our default or natural state. I'd love to see someone bring Plantinga's religious epistemology to this, or perhaps a Presuppositional apologetic approach. But as I'm more an evidentialist I'll stick to my previous response to Bill's comment.

In your first argument numerated above the premise which states “there is weak evidence” is false in the case for theism. There are a multitude of good arguments, including cosmological, teleological, axiological, historical, transcendental, etc.

Logical arguments are not evidence – they’re arguments. You should know the difference. Additionally, theological arguments that claim to prove the existence of a creator are seriously disputed in the philosophical community, i.e., the conclusions you prefer are by no means conclusive.

Further, such arguments don’t help your case because they make vague predictions. For example, a first cause creator says nothing about the validity of your old storybook. The “creator” could be Allah or Thor or Zeus or…

Following my complaint about weak evidence, you added one item to my list (erroneously claiming that it is strong evidence):

1. I’m convinced by disputed logical arguments

2. An ancient storybook tells me so

3. I have faith (belief without evidence)

4. I’ve experienced something

This demonstrates a giant non sequitur in your argument. Christianity is dependent on the Christian storybook being true, yet your logical arguments don’t make any claims about that specific book. Believing the truth of the bible requires faith, which is intellectually bankrupt. I have no obligation to believe anything on faith.

But in philosophy positive claims such as “innocence” are not permitted to walk away without evidence. All positive claims are on the stand, as it were.

You’re misrepresenting the “presumption of innocence” in an attempt to salvage your failed arguments. The principles of legal discourse provide an excellent analogy because they closely mirror the discipline of argumentation. Both require that truth claims remain suspect (innocent) until they are proven (guilty). You’re ignoring this very simple point.

Forming strong beliefs based on weak evidence is the time-honored means by which well-meaning people get misled and duped. Yet you’re claiming that anyone who doubts your weak evidence must disprove the case that you can’t prove. That’s utter nonsense and is completely inconsistent with the principles of argumentation.

You’re responses to my last two posts have conveniently ignored my strong arguments. In my last post I offered two parallel sequences that clearly illustrate the folly of attempting to shift the burden of proof. You completely ignored the first sequence and made an empty objection about the second. You’ve also ignored my alien analogy other than to say it doesn’t apply, yet when prompted to provide a supporting reason, you remain silent.

You are violating numerous principles of argumentation in a weak attempt to salvage your untenable arguments. Show me what’s wrong with my sequences – change them if they’re wrong. But don’t just ignore my strong arguments while continuing to reiterate the claims that they dispute. That is conduct unbecoming of rational argumentation.

Most importantly, show me references where the intellectual community collectively supports your unorthodox approach to argumentation. You’re ignoring and modifying core principles of rational discourse to protect your deeply held beliefs, which is deceptive and unfair.

Bill Williams said: 1. Doubter, like all humans, is born a non-believer (our default state)

Stuart McEwing said: I think there may be cause, given the teaching of the Bible, to contend in someway with this premise.

You're proposing another fallacious argument – in this case it's circular. You can't use the bible to prove its own validity.

@Bill

3. I have faith (belief without evidence)

I'm pretty certain that's not what Stuart means by the term faith.

Bill Williams said: 1. Doubter, like all humans, is born a non-believer (our default state)

Stuart McEwing said: I think there may be cause, given the teaching of the Bible, to contend in someway with this premise.

Bill Williams said: You're proposing another fallacious argument – in this case it's circular. You can't use the bible to prove its own validity.

Of course that's not what I'm doing. Neither is it what I'm suggesting could be done.

3. I have faith (belief without evidence)

I’m pretty certain that’s not what Stuart means by the term faith.

That sounds intriguing. I'll be curious to see what that it looks like.

Bill Williams said: 1. Doubter, like all humans, is born a non-believer (our default state)

Stuart McEwing said: I think there may be cause, given the teaching of the Bible, to contend in someway with this premise.

Bill Williams said: You’re proposing another fallacious argument – in this case it’s circular. You can’t use the bible to prove its own validity.

Stuart McEwing said: Of course that’s not what I’m doing. Neither is it what I’m suggesting could be done.

It seems that the validity of the bible is central to this discussion, i.e., it's a huge unproven claim. If the teaching of the bible provides the rationale to contest the premise, how is that not circular?

Bill Williams,

You say,

It seems that the validity of the bible is central to this discussion, i.e., it’s a huge unproven claim.

also,

Christianity is dependent on the Christian storybook being true, yet your logical arguments don’t make any claims about that specific book.

Because I'm not here arguing for the inspiration of the Bible, neither am I arguing for the whole of Christian doctrine. I'm merely defending God's existence. The inspiration of the Bible and God's existence are completely separate issues. It should be obvious that believing in God does not commit you what the Bible says about him. The Bible is not central to this discussion, because the discussion is on (1) the definition of atheism, and (2) who (atheists, agnostics, and theists alike) bares the burden of proof with respect to the claims that each make.

The only links I can see between the case for God and the case for the Bible's inspiration is (1) that the latter requires the former, and that (2) the picture we get of God from the project of Natural Theology* gives us a description consistent with the God revealed in the Bible. These links would be essential if I was to go on to argue for the truth and inspiration of the Bible, but irrelevant with respect to the truth or falsehood of Theism.

* Arguments for God's existence that do not rely on the resources of special revelation, such as the Bible. i.e., the cosmological, teleological, etc.

Bill Williams,

1. I’m convinced by disputed logical arguments 

2. An ancient storybook tells me so

3. I have faith (belief without evidence)

4. I’ve experienced something

Please do not attribute this argument to me. It not mine. It's not really an argument, anyway. This is your rendering of what you think is the case for theism. In your illustration steps 2, 3 and 4 are given as an example of a poor argument for the existence of aliens. You then seek to undermine the case for theism on the basis of that comparison, thinking it a just comparison. But I made it clear that it is a mistake to equate the case you gave in your example for aliens with the case for theism. The two have no resemblance with each other.

Bill Williams,

Logical arguments are not evidence – they’re arguments. You should know the difference. 

Thanks for the advise, but I do know the difference, and your dead wrong. Arguments can be used as evidence. In fact, I'd even go as so far to say there is no such thing as evidence without an argument that is somehow attached to it. I'll leave it at that because its off the topic and, since this has been raised before by someone else, I'd like to address it in another post. Please don't comment further on this aspect, here in this post.

Additionally, theological arguments that claim to prove the existence of a creator are seriously disputed in the philosophical community, i.e., the conclusions you prefer are by no means conclusive

I'm not saying these arguments can't be disputed. And I'm not saying the arguments are conclusive either. But for you to appeal to the dispute in the philosophical community on the arguments for God's existence is a very poor way to undermine the case for theism. In fact it's a fallacy akin to argument ad populum.

Further, such arguments don’t help your case because they make vague predictions. For example, a first cause creator says nothing about the validity of your old storybook. The “creator” could be Allah or Thor or Zeus or…

What does the inspiration of the bible have to do with the soundness of the arguments for theism? That is a complete red-herring.

Also, if the creator was Allah or Thor, that hardly helps the atheistic or agnostic position does it? I would advise you not to argue that way.

Bill Williams,

The principles of legal discourse provide an excellent analogy because they closely mirror the discipline of argumentation. Both require that truth claims remain suspect (innocent) until they are proven (guilty). You’re ignoring this very simple point.

Your comparison of the burden of proof with respect to atheism/agnosticism and theism, and the courtroom is erroneous. You have missed my point. Just as the verdict "Guilty" is a truth claim, so "Innocent" is a truth claim. In philosophy all truth claims, as you say, remain suspect – that is to say, they are neither 'innocent' nor 'guilty,' but remain undetermined (agnostic) until convincing evidence is marshalled. In the courtroom innocence is assumed in order to prevent great injustice.

Yet you’re [Stuart] claiming that anyone who doubts your weak evidence must disprove the case that you can’t prove.

No I am not. Please stop misrepresenting me. Note: If the agnostic informed of the arguments for theism, is to remain sceptical and still maintain that his or her position is reasonable, then they must give an account, either as to why the case for theism is unconvincing, or the case for atheism is equally persuasive.

@Bill,

Let’s break down the components of the word atheist to expose its core meaning (A = without, Theism = god belief).

Your analysis of the "components" based on English morphology is incorrect. Atheism preceded theism in the English language by about a hundred years. This means, etymologically speaking, it is impossible for atheism to be derivative of theism. In fact, theism was introduced into English by a back-formation of atheism.

Why should we let common usage (flavor of the day) supersede the core meaning of the word?

Languages evolve. Who are we to dictate how a language can be used?

Theism is both a "condition" (i.e., to be or not be something) and an "opinion" (i.e., to believe something is or to believe something is not). Atheism is only a condition. To argue theism has a burden of proof because theism has an opinion is reasonable. To argue atheism has no burden of proof because atheism has no opinion is reasonable. To argue theism has a burden of proof because atheism is the default condition is not reasonable. Problematically, atheists conflate "position as condition" with "position as condition and opinion" only when it's convenient to make the theists do the leg work. Once the tables are turned, atheists revert back to position as condition. And, with Stuart, I don't buy that atheism is a position as condition alone. My experience suggests atheism is both a condition and an opinion, and hence necessitates a burden of proof.

Additionally, I don't buy the claim that atheism is the default condition. What evidence exists to infer that atheism is the default condition of humanity?

What does the inspiration of the bible have to do with the soundness of the arguments for theism? That is a complete red-herring.

Here are your exact words: “I think there may be cause, given the teaching of the Bible, to contend in someway with this premise.”

You can’t have it both ways. If you use the bible as a source, you get to defend it. My concern about circularity was not a red herring.

If you want to keep this debate focused on whether a creator exists, that’s fine. Please stop referencing your old storybook.

Also, if the creator was Allah or Thor, that hardly helps the atheistic or agnostic position does it? I would advise you not to argue that way.

I think it’s important to remember that if creationism can be proven, there are countless explanations (you naturally assume it’s your Jesus god). For example, the “creator” could be an advanced race of aliens from a parallel universe or a different dimension of space.

If you were to continue referencing the bible in your comments, then this point would be more relevant. Either way, it certainly doesn’t hurt my position.

…for you to appeal to the dispute in the philosophical community on the arguments for God’s existence is a very poor way to undermine the case for theism. In fact it’s a fallacy akin to argument ad populum.

You introduced theistic logical arguments by claiming that they are strong evidence for theism (using the word evidence in a very broad sense). The fact that they are seriously disputed in the philosophical community is a valid objection to your unsupported claim, i.e., they are not a strong form of evidence.

Therefore, I did not commit the fallacy of argument ad populum. I’m correctly objecting to your unsupported claim. For further clarification, please keep reading.

If the agnostic informed of the arguments for theism, is to remain sceptical and still maintain that his or her position is reasonable, then they must give an account, either as to why the case for theism is unconvincing, or the case for atheism is equally persuasive.

Your first option (must give an account why the case for theism is unconvincing) is perfectly reasonable. To be fair, let’s acknowledge that this is a significant shift from your repeated attempts to shift the burden of proof to the skeptic.

I completely agree that if I find your evidence to be unconvincing, I’m required to say why. This, finally, is a reasonable expectation of the skeptic.

Okay, here’s why I’m unconvinced. The only “evidence” you’ve offered is highly disputed by the community of experts. To better understand this issue, we can tap the wisdom of Bertrand Russell. Note: I’ve softened his use of the word certain to align with my understanding of epistemology.

* When the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held with confidence unless we can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the experts are mistaken

* When they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded with great confidence by a non-expert

* When they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exists, they ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.

I think it can be fairly said that religious apologists are far more impressed with these arguments than the majority of professional philosophers. As a non-expert, I would be foolish to ignore the experts. Because your claims are highly contested by the experts, they cannot be construed as strong evidence.

You yourself acknowledge that these theistic arguments are "not conclusive." Why then am I be obligated to believe them?

Your evidence is weak. Therefore, your case for theism is unconvincing. Plain and simple.

Languages evolve. Who are we to dictate how a language can be used?

That is precisely my point. You are consciously choosing your preferred definition of atheism. I previously demonstrated that I can easily pick a different definition. My “Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy,” 2nd Ed. reads, “A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism.”

When you cherry pick your preferred “flavor of the day” definition, you’re dictating the use of language. The components of the word clearly inform us of its meaning. There’s no need to add more to it.

I don’t buy the claim that atheism is the default condition. What evidence exists to infer that atheism is the default condition of humanity?

Everyone is born without god belief. You weren’t born a Christian anymore than you were born a member of a particular political party. If you’re like most Christians, you were raised by Christian parents who immediately began the process of religious indoctrination.

Beginning in the 1950’s, U.S. rhetoric frequently described the U.S.S.R. as a nation of “godless communists,” i.e., atheists. Why were they atheists? Because they weren’t indoctrinated as children to have a god belief, or they weren't convinced later in life.

Non-belief is the default state until either someone intervenes (religious indoctrination) or the person is eventually convinced through other means. How could it be otherwise?

@Bill,

That is precisely my point. You are consciously choosing your preferred definition of atheism. I previously demonstrated that I can easily pick a different definition. My “Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy,” 2nd Ed. reads, “A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism.”

You clearly misunderstood my argument.

When you cherry pick your preferred “flavor of the day” definition, you’re dictating the use of language. The components of the word clearly inform us of its meaning. There’s no need to add more to it.

Eh? I accept that languages evolve. I accept that over time words take on new meanings and lose old meanings. I accept that people can use a word to mean anything they desire, so long as they inform the others in the discussion of this choice. Where am I dictating language usage? You, on the other hand, appeal back to some "core meaning" and say, "There's no need to add more to it." You are the one dictating language usage, not me.

@Bill,

Everyone is born without god belief. You weren’t born a Christian anymore than you were born a member of a particular political party. If you’re like most Christians, you were raised by Christian parents who immediately began the process of religious indoctrination.

I see a claim, but not evidence.

Beginning in the 1950’s, U.S. rhetoric frequently described the U.S.S.R. as a nation of “godless communists,” i.e., atheists. Why were they atheists? Because they weren’t indoctrinated as children to have a god belief, or they weren’t convinced later in life.

I see another claim, but no evidence.

Non-belief is the default state until either someone intervenes (religious indoctrination) or the person is eventually convinced through other means. How could it be otherwise?

I see a claim, no evidence, and a shifting of the burden of proof. Would you like to put forth some actual evidence for your claim?

Bill,

You ask how could it be othewise (refering basically to the idea that people are born with no belief regarding God, and remain with no belief untill some sort of indoctrination occurs). Well it could be as Calvin suggests. That we are all born with a < I>sensus divinitatis (a sense of divintiy) which spontaneously arises in the appropriate circumstances to produce the belief that God exists. It could be as Plantinga suggests, that warrant for belief can only be explained with reference to the cognitive faculties functioning properly in an appropriate enviroment, and that to have proper function of the cognitive faculties is to have the cognitive faculties operating as God designed them. It could be that our cognitive faculties do not function properly (thus produce spontaneously, in a wide variety of circumstances, the belief that God exists) because, as the scriptures suggest, our faculties are disrupted by the noetic effects of sin.

There is your alternative account. So, as I said, I think there may be cause to dispute the idea that the default position must be one of no beleif. But also, as I said, that I would not be arguing that way. I'm willing to grant for now that no belief is the default position for the sake of arument. If I was to dispute that, that would be a side branch to the main topic on this tread, and one Im not altogether familiar with to argue confidently anyway – so I won't.

Bill wrote: Everyone is born without god belief…

TheCraftMan wrote:I see a claim, but not evidence.

The atheistic majority of the former U.S.S.R. is form of evidence to support my claim. How can millions upon millions of people not believe in god, if as Stuart speculatively suggests, there might be something like a “sense of divinity”? Why didn’t the Soviets have it? Why are there roughly 1 billion non-believers on this planet? One could make further speculations, but that’s all it is – speculation.

I’m no expert on newborns, but I’m pretty sure that their little brains, lacking the ability to comprehend human language, would be unable to grasp complex concepts like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the invisible man in the sky. We all have to first acquire language before we can be indoctrinated into a religion, which means we are born as atheists, i.e., without god belief.

I’d bet a lot of money that the community of scientists who specialize in infant cognition would overwhelmingly agree that it is impossible for human infants to comprehend such concepts. There is almost certainly a ton of hard scientific evidence to support their position.

I agree with Stuart that we can let this one go for now. If you want to claim that there is some other magical or hidden god agenda in the infant brain, I’d be curious to hear why you think that.

@Bill,

The atheistic majority of the former U.S.S.R. is form of evidence to support my claim.

Consistent, not support.

How can millions upon millions of people not believe in god, if as Stuart speculatively suggests, there might be something like a “sense of divinity”? Why didn’t the Soviets have it? Why are there roughly 1 billion non-believers on this planet? One could make further speculations, but that’s all it is – speculation.

Numbers support belief.

I’m no expert on newborns, but I’m pretty sure that their little brains, lacking the ability to comprehend human language, would be unable to grasp complex concepts like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the invisible man in the sky. We all have to first acquire language before we can be indoctrinated into a religion, which means we are born as atheists, i.e., without god belief.

I’d bet a lot of money that the community of scientists who specialize in infant cognition would overwhelmingly agree that it is impossible for human infants to comprehend such concepts. There is almost certainly a ton of hard scientific evidence to support their position.

Speculation.

I agree with Stuart that we can let this one go for now.

Convenient.

If you want to claim that there is some other magical or hidden god agenda in the infant brain, I’d be curious to hear why you think that.

I haven't, and will not.

Bill wrote: If you want to claim that there is some other magical or hidden god agenda in the infant brain, I’d be curious to hear why you think that.

TheCraftMan wrote: I haven’t, and will not.

Yeah, I wouldn't either. It would be an extraordinary supernatural claim that isn't supported by scientific evidence, which makes it virtually impossible to prove.

It's much easier to defend the simple (not extraordinary) and well supported scientific notion that human infants start out ignorant and learn as they go.

@Bill,

Yeah, I wouldn’t either. It would be an extraordinary supernatural claim that isn’t supported by scientific evidence, which makes it virtually impossible to prove.

It’s much easier to defend the simple (not extraordinary) and well supported scientific notion that human infants start out ignorant and learn as they go.

That's some crafty rhetoric there, but it's rhetoric lacking substance. There are nativists who would disagree. Thus, it seems your confidence is misplaced.

There are nativists who would disagree. Thus, it seems your confidence is misplaced.

I didn't say anything about a blank slate and absolutely agree with nativists that we have hard wired capabilities. Infants simply have much to learn before they can comprehend the idea of an invisible daddy in the sky. You're making unfounded assumptions.

My "confidence" comes from knowing that your deeply held beliefs have weak or no evidence and are therefore unprovable.

@Bill,

Allow me to briefly quote the most relevant portion of the article.

Some nativists believe that specific beliefs or preferences are hard wired.

That seems to be at odds with your perspective, as quoted below.

Everyone is born without god belief.

It’s much easier to defend the simple (not extraordinary) and well supported scientific notion that human infants start out ignorant and learn as they go.

Your perspective sounds like tabula rasa, as quoted below.

Tabula rasa is the epistemological thesis that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception.

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with your "unfounded assumption" claim.

My “confidence” comes from knowing that your deeply held beliefs have weak or no evidence and are therefore unprovable.

Quaint.

Bill Williams,

Stuart: Also, if the creator was Allah or Thor, that hardly helps the atheistic or agnostic position does it? I would advise you not to argue that way.

Bill Williams: I think it’s important to remember that if creationism can be proven, there are countless explanations (you naturally assume it’s your Jesus god). For example, the “creator” could be an advanced race of aliens from a parallel universe or a different dimension of space.

That's only a critique on the teleological argument, and in no way even touches any of the cosmological arguments – which would prove creationism. It seems to me you either have a very callous un-thoughtful approach to the arguments for theism, or are completely ignorant of them. No one who has ever considered what a First Cause would have to be like could ever suggest it could be aliens.

The fact that they are seriously disputed in the philosophical community is a valid objection to your unsupported claim [that logical philosophical arguments for theism provide strong evidence]

Actually its not valid at all. It breaks an informal fallacy akin to ad populum.

Stuart: If the agnostic informed of the arguments for theism, is to remain sceptical and still maintain that his or her position is reasonable, then they must give an account, either as to why the case for theism is unconvincing, or the case for atheism is equally persuasive.

Bill Williams: Your first option (must give an account why the case for theism is unconvincing) is perfectly reasonable. To be fair, let’s acknowledge that this is a significant shift from your repeated attempts to shift the burden of proof to the skeptic.

I have not shifted my position at all (Please note my first comment on this thread, which my quoted comment above is just a rewording of). Also note that I have not, here or ever, tried to shift MY burden of proof onto the atheist or agnostic. Each hold their own burden of proof with respect to their own explicit and implicit claims.

Bill WIlliams rephrasing Bertrand Russel: When they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded with great confidence by a non-expert

Bill Willaims: Because your claims are highly contested by the experts, they cannot be construed as strong evidence.

This, according to your own rephrasing of Bertrand Russel, is exactly the wrong conclusion to draw. The correct conclusion would be, "because I am a non-expert, I cannot claim great confidence in either atheism or theism." A conclusion I can agree with.

You yourself acknowledge that these theistic arguments are “not conclusive.”

For clarification, that means my evidence does not establish with Cartesian or mathematical certainty that God exists. I nevertheless think that my case for theism establishes that it is more reasonable to believe in God's existence, and that it therefore is less reasonable to not believe in God's existence.

Your evidence is weak.

You haven't even wrestled with my evidence. This statement is pejorative as well as being uninformed. Please note, your statement is also a positive claim and needs to be justified with arguments if you are to retain any claim to rationality. Even intellectual respectability.

Your perspective sounds like tabula rasa, as quoted below.

Tabula rasa is the epistemological thesis that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception.

You’re again imposing your assumptions on me. I’m familiar with the nature/nurture debate and find it hard to that believe that we don’t have innate wiring. Based on real scientific evidence (rather than speculative religious hopes), it seems quite likely that we have innate wiring related to things like intuitive physics and natural fears of things like heights. That doesn’t fit my understanding of knowledge, but it is mental content.

@Bill,

You’re again imposing your assumptions on me. I’m familiar with the nature/nurture debate and find it hard to that believe that we don’t have innate wiring. Based on real scientific evidence (rather than speculative religious hopes), it seems quite likely that we have innate wiring related to things like intuitive physics and natural fears of things like heights. That doesn’t fit my understanding of knowledge, but it is mental content.

You are conflating content with ability. The point of contention was not ability, but rather belief. Allow me to again quote the relevant section from the article, with emphasis.

Some nativists believe that specific beliefs or preferences are hard wired.

You have confidently rejected that one can have hardwired beliefs, have you not?

Some nativists believe that specific beliefs or preferences are hard wired.

You have confidently rejected that one can have hardwired beliefs, have you not?

Based on what I've studied in the cognitive sciences, I'm of the opinion that our brains don't come pre-wired with specific beliefs. I wouldn't call that confidently rejecting the claim though. As a non-expert I have to rely on the community of experts to inform me.

If it was clear that the consensus of cognitive experts supported the existence of hard-wired beliefs, I would alter my view in a heartbeat. That is a radically different approach to knowledge than the belief-defending nature of apologetics.

I follow the evidence, not speculation.

That’s only a critique on the teleological argument, and in no way even touches any of the cosmological arguments – which would prove creationism. …

My understanding of these arguments primarily comes from an 18-hour audio course on the Philosophy of Religion http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?….

I’m therefore familiar with the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments, which are all extremely vague in their predictions, e.g., the argument for a first cause creator tells us nothing about the attributes of that creator. You seem to be implying otherwise.

No one who has ever considered what a First Cause would have to be like could ever suggest it could be aliens.

Just because you haven’t heard that logical possibility doesn’t mean “No one has ever” said it. The professor in the course I just mentioned used that example – I didn’t make it up. I’ve also heard it in other venues.

It’s a logical possibility, as is the Jesus god and the thousands of other imaginary gods, all competing for attention via human advocates.

The fact that they are seriously disputed in the philosophical community is a valid objection to your unsupported claim [that logical philosophical arguments for theism provide strong evidence]

Actually its not valid at all. It breaks an informal fallacy akin to ad populum.

You’re misunderstanding ad populum. In most areas of knowledge I’m a non-expert. To have any opinion on complex subjects, I have no choice but to rely on the consensus of experts, i.e., I’m unqualified to evaluate the evidence in most realms. So are you.

For example, I’m guessing that you’re not competent to evaluate the complex mathematics behind the many strong conclusions put forth by the scientific discipline of physics. If, for example, you (a non-expert) accept the overwhelming scientific consensus about aspects of quantum mechanics, does that mean you’re committing the fallacy of ad populum? If no, then how is that different?

Following expert consensus is not the same thing as hopping on the bandwagon. They are experts – not the herd. Just because there is a majority opinion doesn’t mean a fallacy is being committed.

Bill WIlliams rephrasing Bertrand Russel: When they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded with great confidence by a non-expert

Bill Willaims: Because your claims are highly contested by the experts, they cannot be construed as strong evidence.

This, according to your own rephrasing of Bertrand Russel, is exactly the wrong conclusion to draw. The correct conclusion would be, “because I am a non-expert, I cannot claim great confidence in either atheism or theism.” A conclusion I can agree with.

Yet you are certain of your god belief, as demonstrated by the Statement of Faith on your website and the belief-defending nature of apologetics. That seems like a double-standard.

I could have better worded by statement to read, “Because the community of experts doesn’t find your evidence convincing, I shouldn’t either.” Though, I still stand by my original wording.

I disagree with your claim that based solely on clever philosophical arguments, I need to make a determination about theism or atheism (that’s one-dimensional framing). I’m informed by many lines of evidence, including the fallibility of the human mind as demonstrated by the scientific disciplines of neurobiology and cognitive psychology. There are many other factors to consider, not just clever (and unimpressive) logical argument.

Your evidence is weak.

You haven’t even wrestled with my evidence. This statement is pejorative as well as being uninformed. Please note, your statement is also a positive claim and needs to be justified with arguments if you are to retain any claim to rationality.

Rubbish. As a non-expert I’m not qualified to “wrestle with your evidence.”

I love how you’re insisting that I support my objection to your claim, when you haven’t supported your initial claim of having strong evidence. Instead you just threw out complex logical arguments and expected a non-expert to evaluate them, or trust your claim about having strong evidence.

The majority of professional philosophers disagree with you. From that I can very reasonably conclude that your evidence is not strong, i.e., its weak. Given that your arguments fail to convince the experts is further reason that you the burden lies with you to prove your unsupported claim.

You say these arguments are strong – how do you know that? The most appropriate place to evaluate such a claim is the philosophical community. Why, I wonder, didn’t you honestly admit the problems with your arguments?

I think its telling that you’re circumventing the experts and going straight to the more ignorant herd to pitch your beliefs. If you really had strong evidence, why can’t you convince the experts? It’s strong evidence, right?

@Bill,

Based on what I’ve studied in the cognitive sciences, I’m of the opinion that our brains don’t come pre-wired with specific beliefs. I wouldn’t call that confidently rejecting the claim though. As a non-expert I have to rely on the community of experts to inform me.

Well, the confidence factor has been lowered. Thus, we have seen a softening of your position. You have gone from "it is so" to "it is my opinion." Fair enough.

If it was clear that the consensus of cognitive experts supported the existence of hard-wired beliefs, I would alter my view in a heartbeat. That is a radically different approach to knowledge than the belief-defending nature of apologetics.

I follow the evidence, not speculation.

This is an interesting repeating process. Why do you feel the need to present your perspective as better than apologetics? Why the need for a rhetoric swipe? Is that because your position is not as strong as you present it to be?

@Bill,

You keep appealing to the "experts" and (the authority of) "science." When are you going to actually present some evidence for your perspectives? You keep rejecting our arguments as "weak," yet your own rest on nothing more than appeals to authority. Where is this so-called evidence you based you perspectives on? I'm convinced it doesn't exist. Your position is all smoke and mirrors.

Why do you feel the need to present your perspective as better than apologetics? … Is that because your position is not as strong as you present it to be?

That is one possibility. Another possibility is that my position really is better than apologetics.

To determine which position is more reasonable, I’d like to suggest that we consult the community of experts, i.e., professional philosophers, especially those who specialize in logic.

That makes sense, doesn’t it?

No. It's a fallacy of logic to appeal to proffesionals or experts to determine the truth of a position.

@Bill,

I posted a response earlier, but used a different email address. Hence, the response is stuck in the moderation cue. I am going to repost it.

You keep appealing to the “experts” and (the authority of) “science.” When are you going to actually present some evidence for your perspectives? You keep rejecting our arguments as “weak,” yet your own rest on nothing more than appeals to authority. Where is this so-called evidence you based you perspectives on? I’m convinced it doesn’t exist. Your position is all smoke and mirrors.

How does this relate to your comments? Well, you said…

To determine which position is more reasonable, I’d like to suggest that we consult the community of experts, i.e., professional philosophers, especially those who specialize in logic.

It seems as though you're changing your tune. Allow me to quote your previous comment.

I follow the evidence, not speculation.

Appeals to authority are not evidence. I want evidence. What evidence do you have that your perspective is more reasonable?

@Stuart,

You beat me to it. (Oops. I broke the quote tag too.)

Craftman,

O well. I might edit them later. :-)

Let me use this comment also to recommend you get yourself a gravitar. Follow the link above. Make it G rated.

No. It’s a fallacy of logic to appeal to proffesionals or experts to determine the truth of a position.

That's quite the statement. If you're interested, here is an opportunity to revise or clarify it before I comment.

@Bill,

That’s quite the statement. If you’re interested, here is an opportunity to revise or clarify it before I comment.

Wow, really? There comes a point in some discussions where it would be uncharitable to continue. Thus, for your sake Bill, I am going to bow out. Thank you for the discussion up to this point. Have a wonderful day.

I'll stick to what I said. And I'd advise you not to argue against basic principles of logic. Quit while your only slighty behind.

Let me also suggest you get yourself a gravitar by following the link provided. It's very easy to do. Just follow the instructions.

Bill said: To determine which position is more reasonable, I’d like to suggest that we consult the community of experts, i.e., professional philosophers, especially those who specialize in logic.

That makes sense, doesn’t it?

Stuart said: No. It’s a fallacy of logic to appeal to proffesionals or experts to determine the truth of a position.

You’ve previously, and incorrectly, referred to this as Argumentum ad Populum. To better understand why, please consider the following references:

“There is nothing inappropriate about appealing to the judgment of qualified authorities in a field of knowledge as a means of supporting some particular claim related to that field.” – Attacking Faulty Reasoning, 5th Ed., pg 79.

“…there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true…” – http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Appeal-to…

“We must often rely upon expert opinion when drawing conclusions about technical matters where we lack the time or expertise to form an informed opinion.” – http://fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

Appealing to authority is a common fallacy, but only when it is done inappropriately. One common mistake is to trust experts who make claims outside their field of expertise. But not all appeals to authority are fallacious, i.e., an error in reasoning.

Before we continue, please support your claim that one can never “appeal to professionals or experts.”

Wow, really? There comes a point in some discussions where it would be uncharitable to continue. Thus, for your sake Bill, I am going to bow out.

Uncharitable? That's funny.

I do agree though – this is a good time for you to bow out. You've just made a fool of yourself.

@Bill,

It seems you desire me to stay, so I will. You dig your own grave though.

Bill: You’ve previously, and incorrectly, referred to this as Argumentum ad Populum.

No, he did not. He understood your statement "seriously disputed" to refer to a large percentage or the majority of the "philosophical community." Thus, with such an understanding, he was correct in pointing to the fallacy. However, it's possible your statement means something else. If so, please enlighten us.

Before we continue, please support your claim that one can never “appeal to professionals or experts.”

He never said "never." He said appealing to an authority cannot be used "to determine the truth of the position." That is precisely what the fallacy in question is about.

@Stuart,

If I have misrepresented your statements and/or thoughts, please feel free to correct me. Though, I suspect my representations are fairly accurate.

@Bill,

There is a problem with appeals to authority on subjects which are contentious nature. This almost always results in each perspective presenting their own authorities and then claiming, "My daddy can beat up your daddy." Or, sometimes they devolve to appeals to popularity (i.e., "more scholars believe…") even when genuine disagreement exists. Or, they can also devolve into the "your authority is not an authority" debate. None of these rabbit trails are truly relevant to the main discussion because appeals to authority don't establish truth, and as such these discussions should best be avoided by appealing to reason and evidence instead.

Thus, a point of suggestion, if you feel inadequate to argue in favor of a subject on your own then refrain from making grand claims about the subject. It's really that simple. Further, I find it rather odd that someone who claims to follow the evidence would devolve into appeals to authority.

Bill,

As a side note, it's kinda funny how your gravitar refers to circular reasoning, cos what you have done is appleal to authority in order to conclude it is ok to appeal to authority. Just a funny observation.

I have to appologise for shifting the goal posts. I've gone back and seen that you were saying appeals to authority confer reasonableness to a position. And I reponded that appeals to authority do not confer truth to a position.

Which is still true, despite your quotations. With the possible exception of one, all those only speak to the former. But following that one, I have found you have cherry-picked the quote from a larger sentence and wider context. I'm glad you posted the link with it. That way all can read that sentence in light of the first paragraph.

The argument that was akin to ad populum was the one you made when you appealed to the dispute among philosophers on the aruments for Gods existence to negate the reasonableness of those arguments. The appeal to authority made by you was on a different matter, namely, your and TheCraftMan's side discussion on innate beliefs of infants.

TheCraftMan is correct that you have here only been appealing to authority. What makes these types of appeals pursuasive is not the authorities opinion. It is the reasons they give for why they hold their opinions. So if your comments are to move beyond the fallacy of appeal to authority, you also need to provid the reasons… – that is not to say I'm interested in them (here at least). I think that topic has drifted far from the field if the orginal article above and was subsequently was defending in the comments. The discussion is on the definition of atheism and the burden of proof with respect to the claims both atheist and agnostic make.

TheCraftMan,

I think you have assesed the situation fairly. We are on the same wavelength – we must have been typing our simila replys at the same time. Thanks for the backup. :-)

Let’s review. Stuart, in your post on May 2010 at 1:47 pm, you made an assertion that theistic logical arguments are strong evidence for your beliefs. I very reasonably challenged your assertion because the majority of experts disagree with you. In our resulting discussion (including the side discussion on innate beliefs of infants), the two of you made the following unsupported assertions:

Stuart: But for you to appeal to the dispute in the philosophical community on the arguments for God’s existence is a very poor way to undermine the case for theism. In fact it’s a fallacy akin to argument ad populum.

Stuart:Actually its not valid at all. It breaks an informal fallacy akin to ad populum.

TheCraftMan: You keep appealing to the “experts” and (the authority of) “science.” When are you going to actually present some evidence for your perspectives? You keep rejecting our arguments as “weak,” yet your own rest on nothing more than appeals to authority.

Stuart: It’s a fallacy of logic to appeal to proffesionals or experts to determine the truth of a position.

Stuart: I’d advise you not to argue against basic principles of logic.

TheCraftMan: He understood your statement “seriously disputed” to refer to a large percentage or the majority of the “philosophical community.” Thus, with such an understanding, he was correct in pointing to the fallacy [Argumentum ad Populum].

He said appealing to an authority cannot be used “to determine the truth of the position.” That is precisely what the fallacy in question is about.

TheCraftMan: I find it rather odd that someone who claims to follow the evidence would devolve into appeals to authority.

You both insist that I am committing these fallacies, adding that I’m “arguing against basic principles of logic” – prove it! Show me links to online descriptions of the fallacies Argumentum ad Populum and Argument from Authority that are consistent with your preceding claims.

Many accredited universities have online resources to help people understand informal logic and argumentation. Therefore it should be easy to find links where I can read about my errors. Please point me directly to the specific places within the texts that describe the errors you claim I’m making.

Stuart, just a curiosity. Because of the small size, I'm having trouble making sense of your new gravitar.

What it is?

Sorry – what is it?

I'd like to further clarify my request. I've always understood Argumentum ad Populum to refer to "the masses," i.e., the herd.

Please show me credible philosophical resources that say it's a fallacy to appeal to "expert" consensus, not just herd mentality.

@Bill,

The appeal to authority and appeal to popularity fallacies are both fallacies of relevancy. This means that they appeals are not relevant to the argument, as Stuart has already hinted at.

Appeal to Authority.

However, appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this subject, when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject (except for the occasional lone wolf), when the reasoner misquotes the authority, and so forth.

You have committed this fallacy.

I very reasonably challenged your assertion because the majority of experts disagree with you.

Without evidence of the majority, you are guilty of the fallacy. Next, Argumentum ad Populum.

"Snob Appeal": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society thinks or believes.

(There are many non-fallacious appeals in style, fashion, and politics–since in these areas the appeal is not irrelevant.)

You have committed this fallacy.

I very reasonably challenged your assertion because the majority of experts disagree with you.

Wait. You object, "But the article says, 'But not necessarily an authority.'" You are correct. However, as you will notice, the "not necessarily" element leaves open the possibility of appeals to authority to be an appeal to popularity. The question which remains is, "When?" Taken from Appeal to the People.

The ‘too strongly’ is important in the description of the fallacy because what most everyone believes is, for that reason, somewhat likely to be true, all things considered. However, the fallacy occurs when this degree of support is overestimated.

Because you have overestimated the degree of support, you have committed the fallacy.

There is a simple way to counter my presentation. You can produce evidence that shows the large majority of experts, scholars, and professionals disagree with Stuart and myself. I'm assuming since your position is supposedly based on evidence and not speculation, then you have a ready reservoir of evidence which you can present to defend your perspective on all the points of contention at which you have appealed to authority and/or popularity.

Fair warning. If you respond without producing evidence for your fairies, then I will not bother responding because your baseless and empty rhetoric have become boring.

Hey, what’s for dinner? Red Herring!

If you want to play apologist rhetorical games, fine, let's back up. For now, I retract everything that I said about experts.

Stuart claimed to have strong evidence for his theistic logical arguments, which is a positive assertion. Yet he never offered an argument, i.e., no supporting reasons to back up his claim (which you constantly insist that I do).

Therefore his original statement is pure conjecture, which I have no obligation to accept.

Stuart claimed to have strong evidence – prove it! After that, we’ll talk about logical fallacies.

TheCraftMan,

Thanks for doing the leg work on that one. I'm more inclined to think that all appeals to authority are fallacious. That is because the truth of a proposition and an authority's opinion have no correlation with each other. The one mitigating factor that I can see (which is said in many different ways) is that an authority is likely to have good reasons as to why he holds to a certain proposition, so appealing to an authority would lend a proponent a modicum of confidence that it was true (or false). In that case, its evident that what matters is not the opinion of the authority, but the reasons the authority gives for holding that opinion.

Stuart: There are a multitude of good arguments, including cosmological, teleological, axiological, historical, transcendental, etc.

Bill WIlliams counters: (1) theological arguments that claim to prove the existence of a creator are seriously disputed in the philosophical community, i.e., the conclusions you prefer are by no means conclusive.

Further, (2) such arguments don’t help your case because they make vague predictions. For example, a first cause creator says nothing about the validity of your old storybook. The “creator” could be Allah or Thor or Zeus or… [numbers mine]

(1) Is an appeal to authority. These arguments don't claim to produce a conclusive result. They claim to render the conclusion the God exists as more likely than any type of negation. And further, the refutations of the arguments from Natural Theology are also seriously disputed in the philosophical community, so I don't see why the idea that those arguments are seriously disputed should matter all that much.

(2) Three points in response: (A) Any vagueness or ambiguity about the being concluded by the arguments for a first cause (Cosmological arguments) is irrelevant, as any conclusion is at least a defeater for naturalism or atheism. (B) That the Cosmological arguments do not also prove the validity of the Biblical narrative is also irrelevant. It does not purport to be able to do so. (C) The claim is blatantly false anyway. Conceptual analysis of a first cause of the universe would render a being that is (i) immaterial or non-physical, (ii) timeless or sans-time therefore eternal, (iii) spaceless or sans-space (omnipresent?), (iv) tremendously powerful (omnipotent?), (v) that which is sans-time and immaterial would also be (vi) changeless, therefore (vii) necessary and uncaused. It would also be (viii) transcendent. Being immaterial one could argue for (ix) simplicity. With additional arguments you could also conclude such a being would have to be (x) personal. Now if an argument for a first cause is vague (as Bill Williams claims above) such that folks might think that sit was Zeus or Thor, how does that not help the theistic case? Or, if the argument is indeed sound, how does that at all mitigate that idea that Christianity is more reasonable than atheism?

Bill Williams complains that the theist has not managed to carry his burden of proof with respect to God's existence, for logical and philosophical arguments only provide 'weak' evidence. This is pejorative rhetoric. Insofar as he maintains the philosophical arguments the theist uses are weak for the reason that they are disputed amongst professional philosophers, he is appealing to authority and therefore committing a fallacy of logic. To which it follows that his reason for labeling the theistic arguments as 'weak' is a poor one and cannot be trusted.

As I have been saying, if the agnostic informed of the theistic arguments is to maintain that his position is reasonable, then he would have to show why the case for theism fails, or else show why the case for atheism is equally as persuasive. Until then, given the case for theism (discussed elsewhere on this blog, not in the this thread or article) and the lack of case for atheism (also discussed elsewhere on this blog), it is more reasonable to believe that God exists.

Bill Williams,

Looks like we were typing at the same time. I accept your retraction of your appeal to experts.

I've lately been thinking about what you have just asked for. Here is my quick response.

In this article and subsequent comments, my case for theism (which is part of my case for Christianity) has not been the concern. So my failing to provide it here is not cause to call it pure conjecture. I have referred in part to my case, and just above you have seen me quote the relevant section. Though I have never comprehensively laid it out or even published an outline, in searching the Thinking Matters archives you would be able to piece it together. Its by no means original, drawing on the thought of philosophers and theologians of the past. And by no means complete – I'm still filling in major sections that are at the moment only outlined. For instance, here at Thinking Matters the predominant special area of interest has been arguments for God's existence, but we haven't done too much concerning the authority of the Bible or the coherence of the the Incarnation, for example.

@Stuart,

I’m more inclined to think that all appeals to authority are fallacious. That is because the truth of a proposition and an authority’s opinion have no correlation with each other.

Fair enough. I don't fully agree, but I don't have the time to engage on the matter. Don't be too harsh on Bill. ;)

@Bill,

Fair enough. I'll let it stand at that point. Have fun.

In this article and subsequent comments, my case for theism (which is part of my case for Christianity) has not been the concern.

Huh? If you print this thread it stretches well past 40 pages. You claimed to have strong evidence for theism on page 12, and we’ve been arguing about it ever since. How has that not been the concern?

Further, you've continually insisting that I provide argument to prove that your evidence is weak, yet when finally pressed to present your original claim as an argument, you can’t. Lesson learned (at least for me).

So my failing to provide it here is not cause to call it pure conjecture.

Conjecture: the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjecture

Not only have you not put forth evidence, you haven’t even formed an argument. The fact that you’ve written a bunch of disjointed articles on the subject is irrelevant – that’s now how argumentation works.

You advanced an unsupported claim as though it was fact, and then began the classic apologist tactic of attacking any and all objections. You boys don’t play fair, which allows you to protect your unsupported beliefs. Your clever rhetorical tactics are incompatible with the Truth Seeking and Fallibilityprinciples.

Your statement of having strong evidence is empty opinion. Until you’re prepared to put forth a cogent argument, I have no obligation to consider your opinion. For now, this discussion is dead.

@Bill,

If you print this thread it stretches well past 40 pages. You claimed to have strong evidence for theism on page 12, and we’ve been arguing about it ever since.

You were printing our comments? Hehe. The writing style and register remained the same. The comments seemed so disconnected from the conversation. This helps me to understand why now.

You were printing our comments? Hehe. The writing style and register remained the same. The comments seemed so disconnected from the conversation. This helps me to understand why now.

Wow, look at that. Another irrelevant comment with no substance. How about providing a logically sound argument to support Stuart's "conjecture" about having strong evidence? (An empty opinion that you clearly seem to embrace.)

You seem to think that you're intellectually superior – so prove it! Let's see – you have faith, and personal experience, and what?!?! So far you've offered nothing! Gee, I wonder why…

I was of the understanding that this site embraces intellectual discourse that is grounded in the principles of logic and argumentation. You and your apologist buddy have been defending his explicit yet unsupported claim to have strong evidence. You both argued incessantly across 30 pages of text. When pressed to put forth an argument, he replied that this "has not been the concern." Boy, talk about a convenient excuse.

Put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise you're just making noise, and continuing to make a fool of yourself.

@Bill,

Wow, look at that. Another irrelevant comment with no substance.

My comment was not intended to be directly relevant. I was merely thinking out load about an observation made.

You and your apologist buddy have been defending his explicit yet unsupported claim to have strong evidence.

I was not defending Stuart's claim, or rather Stuart's side note. This is precisely what I meant by disconnected. You failed to understand that I only defended Stuart insofar as the one specific instance about the argument from popularity. You have misconstrued, as you have repeatedly done with our comments, that my defense on that one specific point was a defense of everything Stuart has argued.

You both argued incessantly across 30 pages of text.

Correction, across one page. ;)

When pressed to put forth an argument, he replied that this “has not been the concern.”

He did not press forth an argument. He made a side note and wanted to focus on the main topic addressed by the blog post. You were the one who got stuck on pressing him down that rabbit trail, unrelated side note. That's why he said the note was not a concern.

@Bill,

Okay, I am officially done. You have the floor for the last response to any of my comments. Have a great day!

@Stuart,

I am officially done now. Good luck.

Okay, I am officially done. You have the floor for the last response to any of my comments. Have a great day!

Goodbye.

Bill Williams,

Sorry I haven't replied in some time. I have been busy of late. Looks like you might have given up, which may be just as well. I too grow weary of this discussion.

Stuart: In this article and subsequent comments, my case for theism (which is part of my case for Christianity) has not been the concern.

Bill WIlliams: Huh? If you print this thread it stretches well past 40 pages. You claimed to have strong evidence for theism on page 12, and we’ve been arguing about it ever since. How has that not been the concern?

In my perspective, and I think this bears out in the text above, my case for theism has not been the focus of the discussion here, the concept of a theistic case being only peripherally involved. Rather, the focus of the discussion has been that the burden of making arguments for the agnostic or atheist is not avoided given two specific conditions. (1) If they are informed of the arguments for theism, and (note the conjunction) (2) if they are to make the claim (implicitly or explicitly) that maintaining their position is reasonable.

Your response has generally been to either (1) to construe my remarks as an effort to shift my burden of proof, as a theist, onto the atheist or agnostic, (2) or to claim there is only "weak" evidence with appeals to the dispute among philosophers concerning the arguments for God. The first response is wrong – I accept my burden of proof – and the second response is fallacious.

You say,

Further, you’ve continually insisting that I provide argument to prove that your evidence is weak, . . . .

Yes. That is what you claimed ( – and if the agonistic is to persist reasonably in his or her agnosticism, while informed of the theistic arguments, that is exactly what they would have to do – ), and you bear a burden to prove this. Now I have been insisting that the reasons you have thus far given for thinking the arguments for theism are weak have been fallacious.

Stuart: So my failing to provide it [arguments for theism] here is not cause to call it pure conjecture.

Bill Williams: Conjecture: the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjecture

Not only have you not put forth evidence, you haven’t even formed an argument. The fact that you’ve written a bunch of disjointed articles on the subject is irrelevant – that’s now [sic] how argumentation works.

Right. I haven't put forth any evidence – HERE. I have elsewhere on this website. Yes they are slightly disjointed, but they can be found. I have written on three cosmological arguments, only slightly on design arguments, extensively on the moral argument, and, from memory, laid some foundations for a historical argument. I have defended my own personal experience of the Spirit of God and my acquaintance with the miraculous, which I take as veridical. Most recently I have written on the Anthropological Argument concluding it was a good argument, but not great. So its unfair to indict me on the charge that I have failed to provide arguments for theism when, (1) I have been sticking to the topic in this thread and that has not been the topic, and (2) I have given them elsewhere.

I understand your point about the focus of your original article. But "you" made the claim about having strong evidence and pretended like it was solid. Based on my objections to that claim, we launched into a ton of related discussion. You were perfectly content to go off on those tangents, but when asked to defend your original claim – no, that's off topic. That's not playing fair.

The point is, if you can't defend your claim, you have no business making it (or you should acknowledge that its conjecture). You certainly can't expect other people to take it seriously. Telling someone to "piece together" your past disjointed articles to find your implicit argument is just plain inappropriate. The fact that you're impressed by theistic arguments and like to write about them is irrelevant. Per your own admission, you don't have an argument.

The discipline of argumentation is a rigorous structured process. If you want a better understanding of how argumentation works, the following lecture series is excellent. The audio version is fine, i.e., you don't need the more expensive DVD's – http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?…

As I mentioned, I learned an important lesson. If we have discussions on other subjects, you won't get away with making grand unsupported claims again – they'll be ignored until they are supported.

Best wishes.

P.S. I'm not giving up. I'm calling "foul."

When I have made positive argumets in support of theism, they have been starkly explicit.

Above, when I referred to the case for theism and the various arguments that can be marshalled for it's defense, I was correcting your characterization of the case for theism which was (at least evidentially) weak. You may call foul, but you need only go back into the TM archives to find the context in which your comments come, and see that the calling of foul is, at least in this case, unfair.

I too grow weary of this discussion.

Let's end on a positive note. I found something that we agree on. :-)

Stuart,

I also agree with your comments on atheism (at least we agree on something).

If so-called atheists are convinced that God does not exist, let them move on to something which does interest them. It's usually best to ignore matters which you don't believe in (unless life forces you to confront them). Please don't argue with the last sentence; it's just a casual observation.

"Let's break down the components of the word ‘atheist’," Williams said, "to expose its core meaning." Although he began properly by describing the Greek privative alpha (‘a-’) as meaning "without," for some reason he launched into inappropriate anachronism by invoking the English word "theism"—which did not exist prior to the 17th century. The reader should be made aware that Williams was therefore not breaking the word ‘atheist’ down to its component parts. Given its origins, the word reduces to negating the Greek ‘theos’. Contrary to the demonstration Williams supplied, breaking down the components of the word actually exposes its core meaning as "without god" or "godless." That is what an Atheist is: someone who is without God and/or holds a godless world view.

It was also interesting to note that, when asked for evidence that atheism is the default condition, Williams reasoned in a vicious circle, from the notion that "everyone is born without God-belief" to the conclusion that "non-belief is the default state"—with a dash of personal incredulity by adding, "How could it be otherwise?" The strength of theistic arguments is a product of not only the intellectual merits thereof but also the astonishing bankruptcy of fallacy-riddled scientarded twaddle offered by Atheists.

atheism is a lack of belief in god, not belief in no god, which is a STRONG atheist point. You must first lack belief in god, to believe in no god.

That seems to be the same distinction as William Rowe gives. I think that WEAK atheism is just an intellectual pose, and can only be rationally sustained by ignorance.

It's not an ignorance exclusive to them. You are just as ignorant as the strong atheist with regards to this matter.

Exactly what am I ignorant of? Is it supposed to be arguments for atheism?

<blockquote cite="Stuart">I think that 'weak' atheism is just an intellectual pose, and can only be rationally sustained by ignorance."

It is indeed an intellectual pose and for the very reasons you already outlined in your original article (pathological avoidance of the burden of proof that cannot be escaped). I really appreciated the considered insights you invested it with, and that by the grace of God you are able to articulately decipher atheistic rhetoric for the readers. Since discovering the Thinking Matters ministry yesterday, you gentlemen became a permanent feature on my prayer list.

<blockquote cite="Joe">It’s not an ignorance exclusive to them. You are just as ignorant as the strong atheist with regards to this matter.

There is a confusion here, Joe. First, what Stuart said is definitionally correct, insofar as 'weak' atheism is another term for agnostic atheism and 'agnostic' implies ignorance by definition; i.e., that is simply what the word means ('a-' + 'gnosis'). An agnostic or weak atheist is someone who answers "I don't know"—ignorance—to the question about God's existence. Second, the only theist who shares this ignorance is an agnostic theist (e.g., fideism), which none of the staff writers at this site are. Third, the strong atheist would defy your characterization, insofar as they position themselves as knowing that God does not exist. If they were ignorant, they would be agnostic or 'weak' atheists, not strong atheists.

A strong atheist would BELIEVE they know god does not exist, just as a theist, esp a strong theist would BELIEVE they know god DOES exist.

Or are you saying god both exists and does not exist, now? That since they KNOW, they're both correct?

The strong atheist professes to know that God does not exist. The strong theist professes to know that God does exist. You rightly point out the contradiction that results if they are both correct (which would also result if they are both incorrect), which means that only one of them can be correct. That means one of them has a broken philosophy. The strong atheist would confidently assert that it's the Christian whose system of thought is broken, presupposing the truth of his own view in order to evaluate the matter. The Christian on the other hand would say, "Critically investigate the atheist's view under its own terms, and the Christian view under its own terms, and see which one is left standing at the end of the day, which view coherently and accurately accounts for the facets of common human experience." Only one of the two views can be correct, and it is no reliable guide to beg the question against the other view.

@Ryft,

“Let’s break down the components of the word ‘atheist’,” Williams said, “to expose its core meaning.” Although he began properly by describing the Greek privative alpha (‘a-’) as meaning “without,” for some reason he launched into inappropriate anachronism by invoking the English word “theism”—which did not exist prior to the 17th century. The reader should be made aware that Williams was therefore not breaking the word ‘atheist’ down to its component parts. Given its origins, the word reduces to negating the Greek ‘theos’. Contrary to the demonstration Williams supplied, breaking down the components of the word actually exposes its core meaning as “without god” or “godless.” That is what an Atheist is: someone who is without God and/or holds a godless world view.

You sir, are a true wordsmith. This is much more elegant than my attempt at the same idea.

“Critically investigate the atheist’s view under its own terms, and the Christian view under its own terms, and see which one is left standing at the end of the day, which view coherently and accurately accounts for the facets of common human experience.”

Let's see: an immaterial, disembodied, powerful, all-knowing and all-good god who has created the universe, then life on an infinitesimal part of it, and chooses and even smaller section of that life and gets angry that they touched themselves at night. It also claims to know all, but also claims that its subjects also have this thing called "free will".

Yeah.

@Joe,

Let’s see: an immaterial, disembodied, powerful, all-knowing and all-good god who has created the universe, then life on an infinitesimal part of it, and chooses and even smaller section of that life and gets angry that they touched themselves at night. It also claims to know all, but also claims that its subjects also have this thing called “free will”.

Yeah.

That's an original criticism which hasn't been answered.

there's answering and then there's actually addressing it successfully.

Expressing incredulity is not critical examination.

I'd like to see the charge of a contradiction between omniscience and free will developed. I don't think I've seen that before.

an all knowing god would know what its subjects would do in advance. Thus, how can the subject do anything "freely" when there's no choice in their action? Everything is in essence predetermined. Either god is not omniscient, or people do not have free will but an illusion of one.

There's an argument in there somewhere. Interestingly, there are different streams of Christian theology which do choose one option over the other (either God is not omniscient – open theism, or humans only have the illusion of free will – Calvinism). For myself though, I dont see why foreknowledge should imply determinism. I see this as the arguments fundamental flaw, and needs to be developed further if it's not going to be a giant non sequitur.

For myself though, I dont see why foreknowledge should imply determinism.

God knows you will do A at B.

Because of his omniscience, you will do A at B.

There is no other choice, because if you do not do A, that means god did NOT know this.

<cite>… an immaterial, disembodied, powerful, all-knowing and all-good God who has created the universe, then life on an infinitesimal part of it, and chooses an even smaller section of that life and gets angry that they touched themselves at night. It also claims to know all, but also claims that its subjects also have this thing called "free will."</cite>

Thanks for the supercilious caricature. It was entertaining despite its shallow irrelevance. I suppose you were confused about what it means to investigate something "under its own terms." You began appropriately enough but, for no obvious reason, decided to start stuffing it full of straw, leaving Christianity "under its own terms" unchallenged. Here's some baling wire, and a broom for the mess. When you're done, the Christian faith will be over here waiting for any valid criticisms.

<cite>An all-knowing god would know what its subjects would do in advance.</cite>

That is true only for a god who is temporally bounded (i.e., a future and a past). The God revealed in Scriptures has a very different sort of existence; as the creator of our spacetime manifold, he necessarily transcends its spatial and temporal dimensions. Among his attributes is the one called omnipresence, which Aiden Tozer aptly characterized this way: "In God there is no was or will be, but a continuous and unbroken is. In him, history and prophecy are one and the same." Or as Charles Spurgeon put it, "With God there is no past, and can be no future … What we call past, present, and future, he wraps up in one eternal now."

<blockquote cite="">… an immaterial, disembodied, powerful, all-knowing and all-good God who has created the universe, then life on an infinitesimal part of it, and chooses an even smaller section of that life and gets angry that they touched themselves at night. It also claims to know all, but also claims that its subjects also have this thing called "free will."

Thanks for the supercilious caricature. It was entertaining despite its shallow irrelevance. I suppose you were confused about what it means to investigate something "under its own terms." You began appropriately enough but, for no obvious reason, decided to start stuffing it full of straw, leaving Christianity "under its own terms" unchallenged. Here's some baling wire, and a broom for the mess. When you're done, the Christian faith will be over here waiting for any valid criticisms.

<blockquote cite="">An all-knowing god would know what its subjects would do in advance.

That is true only for a god who is temporally bounded (i.e., a future and a past). The God revealed in Scriptures has a very different sort of existence; as the creator of our spacetime manifold, he necessarily transcends its spatial and temporal dimensions. Among his attributes is the one called omnipresence, which Aiden Tozer aptly characterized this way: "In God there is no was or will be, but a continuous and unbroken is. In him, history and prophecy are one and the same." Or as Charles Spurgeon put it, "With God there is no past, andcan be no future … What we call past, present, and future, he wraps up in one eternal now."

That is true only for a god who is temporally bounded (i.e., a future and a past). The God revealed in Scriptures has a very different sort of existence; as the creator of our spacetime manifold, he necessarily transcends its spatial and temporal dimensions. Among his attributes is the one called omnipresence, which Aiden Tozer aptly characterized this way: “In God there is no was or will be, but a continuous and unbroken is. In him, history and prophecy are one and the same.” Or as Charles Spurgeon put it, “With God there is no past, andcan be no future … What we call past, present, and future, he wraps up in one eternal now.”

Are you saying god is timeless? are you saying god is in hell, since he is "everywhere"?

God is not "timeless" (nowhere in time) so much as "timeful" (everywhere in time).

God is not “timeless” (nowhere in time) so much as “timeful” (everywhere in time).

Explain how this is supposed to make sense.

Atheism is a RESPONSE TO A CLAIM OF A GOD EXISTING. It is the non belief in a particular god. Anti-theism is the denial of a particular god existing. These are two very different things. We're all Atheists in regards to most gods, e.g a christian is a Zeus Atheist.

"Ask any of them in an unguarded moment, “Do you believe there’s a God?” and what answer will you get? There answer will be “No.”"

Of course an Atheist will tell you they don't believe in god, you can choose not to believe in something, but at the same time not deny it's existence, this is the Atheists standpoint.

I've written this as plainly and simply as i can, so that people will understand.

Also, much of the argument here seems to be about defining the word "Atheism", the major disagreement being that the word has changed meaning over the years. This is almost totally irrelevant! Atheists today go by today's definition. Please don't argue using your misinterpretation of the word, you're not going to get anywhere.

Hello Lol,

Thanks for your perspective.

Actually, I think the majority of the conversation here had been with respect to the atheist's (how ever that is defined) burden of proof. I'm quite willing to grant (what I see as a) barstardized definition of atheism, (and frankly for many a dishonest one) as long as the atheist recognizes s/he doesn't get a free lunch when it comes to justifying their position with reasons.

Simon claimed Any and every claim needs evidentiary justificationFine then until Simon provides some evidentary justification for this particular claim we can reject it as on par with belief in fairies and spaghetti monsters.

Atheism is always going to be on a defensive argument. It denies the existence of something. That's negative.

Antony Flew's definition in the Blackwell Companion to Philosophy of Religion.

"an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist.”[3]

The principle in philosophy of Burden of Proof puts the onus on who asserts, must prove.

Agreed,

One of the points above seeks to explain that the "atheist" (given the newer construal of the term) who, when informed of the arguments for God's existence yet remains committed to his/her atheism, implicitly makes a claim that his/her psychological state is more rational than the Theistic position. Thus the "atheist" is not without an assertion, and must, on pain of reasonableness and/or rationality, carry a burden of proof.