Is there a 'default' stance on theism?

[Mithrae]

On consultation with the moderation team, I've learned that a recent thread intended to open up debate about certain views contained "pejerotive rhetoric" about those views in the title - unlike Why do Christians hate women? or Non-believers to BURN IN HELL!

As I read it I thought the thread had a lot of potential and was proceeding quite civilly, so I was a little disappointed when I reached the end. But since an offer has been made to 'consider' allowing an alternative thread to proceed with a new title and OP, I've taken the liberty of making a few small changes which I hope EduChris does not mind.

• EduChris wrote:
  Many non-theists have adopted the notion that their view represents the so-called "default position" and therefore they need not engage in actual arguments themselves. So, all they ever do is sit back and say, "prove it" (regardless of what actual arguments anyone offers). These non-theists themselves provide no evidence, few arguments, and they do no mental "heavy lifting."
  
  Now it is true that the "non-theist" position would constitute the "default position" with respect to "accidental gods"--the supposed "gods" of obsolete theisms--which were presented as logically contingent and therefore never understood as the logically necessary Source and Ground of all the contingent existence we find in our universe.
  
  However, today's major world theisms do not posit the "accidental gods," the logically contingent gods of obsolete Greek and Norse and other mythologies. Instead, all of today's major world theisms posit the logically necessary Ultimate Reality which is thought to be Volitional on the basis of solid epistemological reasoning.
  
  Question for debate: should this notion of a 'default' stance on the ultimate nature of reality be abandoned? Why should anyone be allowed to engage in the equivocal practice of claiming the "default position" on the issue of "accidental gods" when in fact the real argument has nothing whatsoever to do with these logically contingent "gods" of obsolete superstition?
  
  Isn't it time for these non-theists to develop some new arguments against the actual theologies of today's major world theisms, rather than simply rest on the laurels of arguments which succeed only against "gods" that few (if any) people take seriously any more?

[EduChris]

...Atheism operates within the confines of logic, reason and common sense. Religion doesn't, it operates with belief and faith...

If you will bother to actually read my argument, you will see that it depends entirely on reason and logic. Thus far in this thread, all of the statements of "belief" and "faith" have been coming from those non-theists who believe (assume) that their position (their unargued, faith-based insistance on "chance & necessity alone") is somehow--magically--the "default" position.

...Christians...simply say that the Bible is the proof and will never accept anything contrary to that standpoint, logical or not. So you see, if you can't expect Christians to provide logical and reasonable arguments for their belief...

You'd have to actually read my arguments to see how ridiculous your claim here is.

...atheists can only provide logical and reasonable arguments for their position...

Again, all that seems to be coming from the non-theist side here is emotional strawman arguments. I don't see anyone offering any actual, reasoned rebuttals to my position; instead, we are seeing precisely the sort of non-theist "arguments" that I have been criticizing; namely, auto-pilot, knee-jerk equivocations involving worn-out mantras parroted from obsolete debates.

...Most every Christian have their own personal idea about God...How is atheism supposed to provide proof of something not even Christians can agree what is?...

This thread is about the simple, general, apples-to-apples theism-vs-non-theism question. I have not argued for Christianity or for any other particular religion. Note also that there are particular sorts of atheists with any number of views about any number of topics, and we don't usually fault the atheists for not all agreeing on everything under the sun. If you want to debate particulars, go to some other thread where those particulars are "on topic."

But if you want to make any sort of meaningful contribution to this thread (besides simply acknowledging your membership in the "lazy atheists non-debate club") you will have to take a deep breath, calm down, read the arguments, and offer a reasoned rebuttal if you have one.

[Artie]

But if you want to make any sort of meaningful contribution to this thread (besides simply acknowledging your membership in the "lazy atheists non-debate club") you will have to take a deep breath, calm down, read the arguments, and offer a reasoned rebuttal if you have one.

I did offer a reasoned rebuttal to Flails post. I'm just waiting for a reasoned rebuttal back from Flail why atheists should be expected to provide evidence for the non-existence of God when nobody can even provide a clear picture of what the atheist is supposed to provide evidence for the non-existence of.

[Flail]

Artie wrote:

Of course atheism cannot be expected to provide any kind of proof that God doesn't exist. Atheism operates within the confines of logic, reason and common sense. Religion doesn't, it operates with belief and faith.

Atheism and Christianity operate upon the same ground when either make truth claims about the existence or non-existence of 'God' without evidence, and both must be expected to provide proofs in order that those claims be validly supported.

[Flail]

Artie wrote:

Most every Christian have their own personal idea about God and what He is and what He does and where He is, and their own interpretation of the Bible. Some believe He's out there somewhere unreachable, some believe they talk with Him every day. Hence all the different creation scenarios for instance. How is atheism supposed to disprove something not even Christians can agree what is? Of course you cant prove that God doesnt exist " no one can even agree on what God is supposed to be. Such a proposition is completely meaningless.

As an Ignostic I agree that when it comes to 'God' we have no coherent idea of what we are talking about let alone whether or not supernatural beings exist. However, why should we require a different standard for a truth claim that 'God' doesn't exist than for a truth claim that any particular 'God' does exist? IMO, we have no discernible, verifiable evidence to support either claim. If a Christian doesn't have such evidence he should refrain from making truth claims as to his 'God'; if the atheist has no such evidence for his truth claim that 'God' does not exist he should also refrain from making such a claim.

[EduChris]

...Atheism and Christianity operate upon the same ground when either make truth claims about the existence or non-existence of 'God' and both must be expected to provide proofs in order that those claims be validly supported.

Can we keep this thread on topic, please?

I have presented the case that the black box of Ultimate Reality must exist by logical necessity. I have also argued that this "black box" is empirically unknowable, but nevertheless somewhat amenable to logical analysis. I have then argued that the "black box" of Ultimate Reality either involves volition, or it doesn't.

From the standpoint of epistemology, compelling arguments are required if one wishes to rule out any of the three known types of causality: chance, necessity, and volition. Since non-theism logically depends on eliminating volition from the mix, whereas theism can allow for all three types of causation, non-theism cannot be the "default position" as claimed by the "Lazy Atheists' Non-debate Club."

We are not discussing the ontological "truth" of theism vs. non-theism; rather, we are discussing whether or not there is a "default position" from the standpoint of epistemology. Do you have anything "on topic" to offer in this conversation?

[Off topic note: I have admitted that the "black box" of Ultimate Reality is empirically unknowable, so in that sense I am an ignostic. The difference between you and me is that I believe that the "black box" has revealed something of itself to us in the form of Jesus of Nazareth. This, however, is a matter for a different thread, since I would like to keep this particular thread on topic.]

[Artie]

EduChris wrote:
However, today's major world theisms do not posit the "accidental gods," the logically contingent gods of obsolete Greek and Norse and other mythologies. Instead, all of today's major world theisms posit the logically necessary Ultimate Reality which is thought to be Volitional on the basis of solid epistemological reasoning.

What does this mean exactly in English? It appears that you are trying to separate Creator Gods from the other thousands of gods and say that they are somehow different? Thor is obsolete, but Creator Gods are not? Originally Yahweh was a war god, just one of many gods before He was promoted to single God Creator of the Universe. So you can't say that Creator Gods exist and others don't and are obsolete. So what are you trying to say? Something about Ultimate Reality which requires Volition but doesn't involve gods? Who's doing the volition then? Are you trying to tell us that something or someone actually wanted to create the universe and did but you haven't got a clue what it is and it isn't a god?

[Mithrae]

Then it seems that a crucial question, as far as you're concerned at least, is what constitutes 'proof' in any given context - when it comes to physics or biology, for example, or when it comes to history or sociology. But as we've seen often enough, what one intelligent person might consider blatantly obvious another may well believe to be very unclear, or indeed exactly the opposite of the first view! You gave examples of Yeti, Bigfoot, green aliens and a 'supernatural deity,' the latter of which you now say was a fundamentally invalid concept, and the other three of which are not even remotely comparable to EduChris' initial comments.

As far as I can see, the one thing they all have in common is THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for them. Not one of them passes the 'show me' test. Theoretically, yeti, big foot, and little green men from alpha centauri can be shown to be true .. or, in the case of the little green men from Alpha Centauri, false,.. if it can be shown there are no suitable planets for life in that system.

What EduChris, or you have not done is provide a methodology to actually test for a deity..,... or prove or disprove it. Rather than show evidence, an argument that is vaguely defined, and based on unprovable elements is often given as 'evidence'. However, arguments are not evidence. When someones arguments degenerates into vague , poorly defined terminology and double talk, it is word games.

Would you say that a fundamental character of the universe (the logically necessary 'Ultimate Reality' as Chris calls it) as being non-volitional (or purely random and/or deterministic) is something which can be shown to be proven? Or, being otherwise merely a presumption, would that be one of the 'word games' you're talking about?

Well, at this point, we can show that there are probabilistic and deterministic phenomena. At this point, those items can be demonstrable... even though at the moment there is a great deal of speculation about if some phenomena is spontaneous or if it has hidden variables. Those items can be examined. So , at this point in time, we can reasonable assume there is nothing beyond that. However, if someone can provide a methodology to show volition .. and we can make tests that can be repeated.. then by all means, show me. Right now, that is not the case, and provisionally, things can be accepted as non-volitional. Do you have any evidence otherwise? If so, show me, or come up with a methodology to test the issue. If you can't, well, then the explanations for what we can observe remains. Might there be an intelligence behind everything?? Can you show me? If not, then it is reasonable and logical to be skeptical of this said intelligence.

It all comes down to a simple principle. Can you show a reasonable methodology to test what you claim to be true, and to the predictions it can logically make be born out through observation and testing?

Much as it pains me to admit it, EduChris answered this rather better than I probably could at the moment, having apparently given it considerably more thought

• Chance is causal activity which cannot be reduced to pattern or purpose.
  Necessity is causal activity which cannot be reduced to variation or volition.
  Volition is causal activity which cannot be reduced to chance or necessity.
  
  Of the three, volition is the only one which impinges itself on our consciousness in unmediated fashion. If we know what chance & necessity are, we have an even stronger case for knowing what volition is, since it is part of our inner mental conscious life.

If'n some folk dinnae ken what he be talkin' about, that disn't be no fault o' his.

-----

Mithrae wrote:

Yet that is precisely the presumption on which this notion - that theism requires justification while non-theism can be simply an absense of belief and requires no justification - is built. In the developed Western world we generally grow up with a great deal in the way of core values and attitudes, such as high regard for democracy, liberty, justice, essentially consumer-based economic views, morals, love and so on. These are personal and social viewpoints which can be accepted or rejected, but we do not consider non-democratism or a-morality to be 'default' positions from which we should always or necessarily require or demand the justification of said beliefs.

As a skeptical non-theist Ignostic, I am not buying your strawman presumptions of what all non-theists stand upon as a default position. I have consistently claimed that both atheism and Christianity must be required to provide evidence of any truth claim propounded as to God.

It's pretty simple; if you claim to know a God personally and have no doubt as to this particular God's actual existence and what 'He' would have us do and think, common sense tells me that I should ask for evidence. The same is true for atheism which claims that no God exists; such a claim must have proofs to be considered serious and valid. Beyond that, anyone can believe in the possibility of anything and have a perfectly coherent right to do so...so long as no absolute truth claims are made and that what they believe is couched as metaphor or possibility or hope or faith; so long as no lines in the sand are drawn and no one judges others as hell bound or unworthy of 'their 'God' etc, I am fine with religiosity as a philosophical tradition... even though I don't share it. (Although I do object to governmental tax preferences).

The comments I quoted at Goat were actually adressed originally to you ironically, and while the thread didn't really get the momentum I'd hoped for I don't think you answered it.

So in light of your present comments, perhaps you would be willing to do so? Earlier in that other thread you clearly denied that people at some point should abandon their existing views on religious, political, analytical, moral issues and so on so they can start from scratch in forming truly valid perspectives. Therefore it seems you consider it appropriate to build on the foundation of growth and developmental learning and experience, rather than rejecting it entirely. So rather than merely singling out religious or irreligious views as requiring special justification, I'd appreciate your more precise clarification:
To what extent is it acceptable to use our childhood knowledge and the prevailing views around us as a starting point, requiring their falsification before rejecting them rather than their demonstration before acceptance?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 24:

I will not sit silent while EduChris, the creator of the "Ignores the Uncivil" member group goes about hypocritically and continually slandering atheists with this "lazy atheists' non-debate club" term.

If the mods are unable or incapable of getting this dude to act in a civil manner towards others, I feel it is my duty to start serving some of his incivility back to him.

I will not sit silent while my atheist friends are being continually and repeatedly slandered by this :censored:


I place this message within the thread in which the violation occurred in order to shine a light on this hypocrite, and to show that he has no real argument other than to insult others who don't accept his faulty and fallacious "reasoning".

Let the mods and the observers know I will continue to press this issue until such time this insulting language is no longer being presented by this hypocrite.

1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

It is my contention that the definition fits, and I am prepared to provide other, perhaps less flattering definitions or terms if this hypocrite is allowed to continue slandering my atheist brethren and sistheren.

[Artie]

As an Ignostic I agree that when it comes to 'God' we have no coherent idea of what we are talking about let alone whether or not supernatural beings exist. However, why should we require a different standard for a truth claim that 'God' doesn't exist than for a truth claim that any particular 'God' does exist?

That is in fact true. If someone has a coherent logical reasonable argument for the existence of his particular god then an atheist can provide a logical and reasonable counterargument. However, when a Christian provides the argument that God exists because the Bible says so, an atheist cannot be expected to provide a reasonable and logical counterargument. And because the Christian God is so undefinable an atheist can't define what he's supposed to prove doesn't exist and is therefore unable to prove that the Christian God doesn't exist.

IMO, we have no discernible, verifiable evidence to support either claim. If a Christian doesn't have such evidence he should refrain from making truth claims as to his 'God'; if the atheist has no such evidence for his truth claim that 'God' does not exist he should also refrain from making such a claim.

An atheist doesn't make any claims. There's nothing for him to prove or disprove. If I make the claim that the moon is made of green cheese and somebody doesn't believe it it's up to me to prove it, not up to him to disprove it. The position "the moon is made of green cheese and my book here proves it" and the position "I don't believe the moon is made of green cheese" are not equal positions. It's up to the person who makes the claim to prove it.

[Mithrae]

I place this message within the thread in which the violation occurred in order to shine a light on this hypocrite, and to show that he has no real argument other than to insult others who don't accept his faulty and fallacious "reasoning".

I wonder whether you have evidence showing that 'lazy' and 'non-debate' are worse or more offensive terms than 'faulty' and 'fallacious'?

While I certainly don't approve of his incivility, I myself would suggest that since EduChris' actual arguments are quite valid, as far as I can tell, as to some extent are his concerns about some rhetorical methods employed by some non-theists, one pair of denigrating terms is more open to the charge of dishonesty than the other, at least.

This is, of course, my opinion. If you're proposing that all terms like 'fundy' or generalisations about religion being 'irrational' or the like should be subject to specific moderator intervention, along with disparaging remarks such as those made by EduChris, I'm not sure this is the place to do so. There's a report button for posts which you feel violate the forum rules - the thread itself does not.

Imagine where we'd be if theists interrupted the thread every other time a generalisation was made about religion!