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?

[micatala]

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."

Moderator Final Warning


The Moderating Team is getting frustrated at having to repeatedly admonish EduChris for the same behavior.

While the "Lazy Atheists Debate Club" is not high on the list of uncivil comments one could make, it clearly serves no other purpose than to be an insult, and this has been pointed out before.

We closed a thread with this title here.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 572#420572

A warning was given here.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 475#420475


Please cease using this term.



Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Flail]

[quote="micatala"][quote="EduChris"][quote="Flail"] 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."

So is your admonition to EduChris or to Flail? I didn't write what you quoted.

[Artie]

[quote="Can we keep this thread on topic, please?

I have presented the case that the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box]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."
[/quote]
I am a member of the "Lazy Atheists' Non-debate Club" and I still don't understand why you feel that non-theism logically depends on eliminating volition from the mix. Let us say that I go along with your argument that volition is the "default position". Why does Thor want to make thunder and lightning then? (I know you love this argument. If you answer it properly I'll never mention him again. Saying that he's a temporary god or something is not an answer.)

Your only point seems to be that you tell everybody that you have logically come to the conclusion that volition is the default position. In English I think it means that you think the universe was created. That is also the position of all the major religions so that's nothing new. However, I can't see you have provided us with anything new, no evidence for who or what wanted to create the universe. So what exactly is your contribution?

[micatala]

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.

Hypocrite much?

Moderator Final Warning



The moderating team is growing frustrated at having to remind a long-time member that challenges to moderating actions or inactions should not be made within a thread. Neither should members behave as if they are "independent moderators."

Use the report button and leave it at that, otherwise PM the moderating team.



It is also not civil to keep calling other members hypocrites, no matter how justified you think that appellation is.


Note that this is a Final Warning.





Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[micatala]

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."

So is your admonition to EduChris or to Flail? I didn't write what you quoted.







Moderator Final Warning


The Moderating Team is getting frustrated at having to repeatedly admonish EduChris for the same behavior.

While the "Lazy Atheists Debate Club" is not high on the list of uncivil comments one could make, it clearly serves no other purpose than to be an insult, and this has been pointed out before.

We closed a thread with this title here.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 572#420572

A warning was given here.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 475#420475


Please cease using this term.



Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Warning is for EduChris. I erred in copying in the quote tags. The post has been edited.

In the future, just PM us on issues likes this.


Moderator Action



______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been moved, merged, or split. Such actions are taken at the discretion of a moderator.

[Artie]

Yet we still have folk here wondering what the difference is between Thor and Christian theology!

That would include me, I guess. I understand what you are trying to say. That Volition is the default position. Which is the default position for all the big world religions. So what? What's new about that? As far as I can discern is that he's saying what all the major religions have been saying for thousands of years: that there has to be some creator. The only new is that he calls this concept a Black Box instead of whichever gods religions revere. Ok. Why wanted whatever or whoever is in this black box to create the universe then?

[Artie]

But with that clarification as to the BibleGod, I stand by my original statement to you that atheists and theists stand on the same ground when either make truth claims about the existence or non existence of 'God' without evidence. Unless theists have discernible, verifiable proofs as to God's existence they should, in all honesty, refrain from making such truth claims. And if atheists likewise make truth claims that 'God' does not exist and they have no evidence to support that assertion to the point of proof, they too should, in all honesty, refrain from making unsupportable claims as to a supernatural being we cannot coherently define.

When the definition of proof and evidence is different between theists and atheists it's the theists that must provide proof acceptable to atheists and everyone else and not atheists that must provide proof acceptable to atheists and everyone else and theists. You are simply repeating your point of view without commenting on my objections so we'll just leave it there.

[WinePusher]

Funny thread.

There aren't many non-theists who engage in the pathetic debating style outlined by the topic creator. I'm thinking right now, and only two users pop into my head. I mean, just look at this thread. You have the majority of atheist/non-theist participants logically and substantively arguing the topic, and you really only have one who.....isn't . The vast majority of atheists and non-theists on here are intelligent and can actually argue a position despite the fact that they aren't required to do so by the forum rules. Of course the burden of proof lies upon the Christian, but the atheist is required to articulate why he/she believes the evidence or reasoning offered up to support christianity is flawed and inadequate. Luckily, we have alot of atheists on this site who do, and only a couple that don't. Ignore the ones that don't and engage in debate with the ones that do.

[Flail]

But with that clarification as to the BibleGod, I stand by my original statement to you that atheists and theists stand on the same ground when either make truth claims about the existence or non existence of 'God' without evidence. Unless theists have discernible, verifiable proofs as to God's existence they should, in all honesty, refrain from making such truth claims. And if atheists likewise make truth claims that 'God' does not exist and they have no evidence to support that assertion to the point of proof, they too should, in all honesty, refrain from making unsupportable claims as to a supernatural being we cannot coherently define.

When the definition of proof and evidence is different between theists and atheists it's the theists that must provide proof acceptable to atheists and everyone else and not atheists that must provide proof acceptable to atheists and everyone else and theists. You are simply repeating your point of view without commenting on my objections so we'll just leave it there.

I don't think the definition of proof and evidence should be any different at all. Perhaps you are conflating Christian ideas as to the BibleGod with basic theism as to a 'God' in general.

If you come to me and say: "Flail, I am an atheist and I claim that there is no God whatsoever, none at all; there are no supernatural beings or entities capable of creation existing in any form, in any dimension, in or out of time and space and I know this to be a fact."

Why, if you stated the above, would I not be justified in asking for your discernible, verifiable evidence in support; just like I would a theist on the other side of such a claim? Why do atheists get to have a different standard?

[Artie]

Of course the burden of proof lies upon the Christian, but the atheist is required to articulate why he/she believes the evidence or reasoning offered up to support christianity is flawed and inadequate. Luckily, we have alot of atheists on this site who do, and only a couple that don't. Ignore the ones that don't and engage in debate with the ones that do.

Thank you for supporting me. The only problem is that the Christian and the atheist have different notions of what evidence and proof is.

I think the OP meant to say that there's a difference between Creator Gods and ordinary gods and that somehow his logic only applied to Creator Gods? He seems to have substituted the name of some Creator God with Black Box instead? Otherwise I have learned nothing about what or who he thinks created the universe.