To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

[Sherlock Holmes]

To be clear the title of this thread is false.

There are currently several purported definitions of atheism, personally I always use the real one, the established one, the one used historically in books on theology, philosophy and so on, the one that's been around for hundreds of years.

But there are some who like to use a different definition one made up one afternoon by Antony Flew in the 1970s in a rather obscure book The Presumption of Atheism.

Nobody paid much attention to this until relatively recently where it became fashionable amongst militant atheists, some of whom even insist that Flew's definition is the true definition.

You can read more about this hand waving and other foot stamping here.

It's also worth noting that there are plenty of atheists who rely on the historic definition and do not agree with this attempt to redefine it, so any pretense that all atheists adopt the "lack of belief" view is false, many atheists do not share that definition at all.

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #108]

I find that the lacking belief in gods is an untenable position to hold when superimposing it over the idea that there is a mind behind the formation of this reality. Here and Now. A Cosmic Mind.

Well, that goes without saying really. You'd hard pressed to find anyone who both lacks belief in gods and believe that there is a mind behind the formation of reality.

I am not so sure, given some answers I have had recently with those who lack belief in gods [ToWoLaBeIGo]

Add to that, the incontrovertible evidence;

Those who lack belief in gods = 247
Much pain but still time
When the dust settles
Two sides of the same coin

The incontrovertible evidence = 301
Knowledge Speaks, Wisdom Hears

Given the evidence I also table, it appears I am slightly more favorably looked upon by members of the atheistic community than other theists they are engaged with, hereabouts.

One is even arguing that the idea of there being a mind behind creation is acceptable to To Wo La Be I Go as long as said mind is not engaged with by the subject. This is reasoned on the basis that it would then have to be identified as a 'god' and one could therefore not believe in it.

Do you find this reasoning honest?

I am not so sure that it is, because it appears to be a self created fort in which to hide behind - given the immovable structure of the primary directive/self identification/definition.

"One Who Does Not Believe In Gods"

One simply cannot do both, according to that atheist at least.

I am saying truthful definition isn't a thing because definitions are purely matters of popularity.

And I am responding that truthful definition is a thing, because definitions can also be untruthful, and untruthful definitions are complained about [re this very thread subjectivity] because those doing the complaining recognize an untruthful definition.

The popularity aspect is just counting the heads of the soldiers fighting for and against any particular definition.

One example of truthful definition is in my recent comments to do with an identified reality which I defined as "The incontrovertible evidence".

So this is what I am pointing to re truthfulness and asking whether it is a truthful thing to be engaged with definitions which create warfare [the confusion of] as the opposing sides stay behind their thoughts/forts and battle it out.

The fighting gets down to differences in opinion and these places which house the battles are wagons for bands.
Significantly - re that observation - probable untruthful definition is committed by members of both fighting tribes...

Probable untruthful definition is committed by members of both fighting tribes = 788
People Judge People. People don't like to be judged. People hide their sins from each other.

The antidote to this warring dynamic will have something to do with accepting all incontrovertible evidence, even at the risk of leaving ones fort altogether, to go to the actual place/position where "bandwagon fallacy" does not apply.

The evolution of consciousness
It could be Satan trying to fool us
Which of em produces the most hot air [a recent Joey Knothead quote]
Where "bandwagon fallacy" does not apply

eta: Link to recent post

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #109]

If you are fine with this, then why would you have problems with the two examples above? Looks to me like they are defining their position without attempting to "shift the burden." Why do you think these examples qualify as attempts at shifting the burden?

Actually, I have already thought of what you are saying here. In other words, "shifting the burden" would not exactly be what I am saying. Rather, it would be those who use the change in meaning, in order to demonstrate they are not making any sort of claims by holding the identity of atheist, and somehow it is the Christian simply by the identity who owns the burden to demonstrate the case. Said somewhat differently, it is the Christian who holds certain beliefs, not the atheist, and therefore it is the one who holds the beliefs who owns the burden, not the one who simply lacks belief. So, you are correct to say that it would not actually be "shifting the burden". Either way though, we both have come up with examples of exactly what I am referring to, so I do not think there is any doubt the change in meaning has been used in this way.

At any rate, at this point I believe we have 3 different ways in which the change in meaning has been, and, or is being used. One would be as I have demonstrated. Another would be as some of you all have explained where it is simply those who would like to be able to identify as atheist, who would like some sort of room to further identify. And now I have been informed the real reason would be in order for atheists to enlarge the tent. The way it was explained to me was, the change in meaning has nothing to do with attempting to win any sort of argument, but rather a way in which to attempt to win a war, and that war being, the war over culture

Here is my position, I have no problem with those who are using the change to better identify. I could not care less. I have no problem with those who are using the change in the meaning in order to enlarge the tent of atheism in order to win over culture. I could not care less. My problem comes in when there are those who use the change in order to make the argument, "it is the one who holds the beliefs who owns the burden, not the one who lacks belief", and I think we have established this has, and is occurring.

"Beyond Culture Wars: Is America a Mission Field or a Battlefield?" by Horton? That seemed to be aimed at Christians.

It is, but you may be pleased in what he has to say, since his main focus is upon the fact that the Church should not be engaged in a war over culture.

If you have no interest in the culture war, then you shouldn't have any problem with us enlarging our tent.

As I have already stated, "I could not care less". You all have at it.

Yeah, it's sort of like that, except we don't have to compromise any of our deeply held beliefs for the merger of agnostics with old school atheists.

That's great news!

I think "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" is at least partly a response (if not the main reason) to the rise of new atheism.

GOOD GRIEF! Do you know when "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" came to be? It would have been 1994 and it did not gain much traction. But hey! You all get after it.

[Bust Nak]

Add to that, the incontrovertible evidence;

Those who lack belief in gods = 247
Much pain but still time
When the dust settles
Two sides of the same coin

The incontrovertible evidence = 301
Knowledge Speaks, Wisdom Hears

Given the evidence I also table, it appears I am slightly more favorably looked upon by members of the atheistic community than other theists they are engaged with, hereabouts.

I don't even know what I am looking at, what is the blue text supposed to be? What does the numbers mean? Moving on...

And I am responding that truthful definition is a thing, because definitions can also be untruthful, and untruthful definitions are complained about [re this very thread subjectivity] because those doing the complaining recognize an untruthful definition.

What makes a definition true / truthful, in your view? What makes "the incontrovertible evidence" the truthful definition of whatever you are referring to as "an identified reality?"

[Bust Nak]

My problem comes in when there are those who use the change in order to make the argument, "it is the one who holds the beliefs who owns the burden, not the one who lacks belief", and I think we have established this has, and is occurring.

Why is that a problem though? It is true that "the one who holds the beliefs who owns the burden, not the one who lacks belief" is it not? Why is "we as agnostic doesn't have the burden of proof" acceptable, but " we as atheists (according to a certain definition) doesn't have the burden of proof" problematic? I mean you've already accepted that it's not a strictly shifting the burden, what else is problematic?

It is, but you may be pleased in what he has to say, since his main focus is upon the fact that the Church should not be engaged in a war over culture.

Then I hope more of your peers take his advice and get out of politics.

GOOD GRIEF! Do you know when "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" came to be? It would have been 1994 and it did not gain much traction. But hey! You all get after it.

The problem for us is, the two groups still have massive influence in my society, despite their infighting.

[William]

Add to that, the incontrovertible evidence;

Those who lack belief in gods = 247
Much pain but still time
When the dust settles
Two sides of the same coin

The incontrovertible evidence = 301
Knowledge Speaks, Wisdom Hears

Given the evidence I also table, it appears I am slightly more favorably looked upon by members of the atheistic community than other theists they are engaged with, hereabouts.

I don't even know what I am looking at, what is the blue text supposed to be? What does the numbers mean? Moving on...

Link to recent post

And I am responding that truthful definition is a thing, because definitions can also be untruthful, and untruthful definitions are complained about [re this very thread subjectivity] because those doing the complaining recognize an untruthful definition.

[1]What makes a definition true / truthful, in your view? [2]What makes "the incontrovertible evidence" the truthful definition of whatever you are referring to as "an identified reality?"

[1] Regardless of my view. Aligning my view with what is incontrovertible.
Neither non-theism nor theism is incontrovertible so neither position can be define as 'true'.

[2] In this case I am referring to the incontrovertible evidence that word-strings can be sorted into lists based upon the numerical values they share, as "an identified reality".

Aligning my view with what is incontrovertible = 511
[What I just wrote]
Such a Mind can prove its existence to the individual = 511
[a recent comment I made re The Cosmic Mind]
Good and evil co-exist without either being dominant = 511
[A statement of opinion which has not been shown to be incontrovertible]

Aligning my view with what is incontrovertible = 511
Such a Mind can prove its existence to the individual
Good and evil co-exist without either being dominant

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #114]

It is true that "the one who holds the beliefs who owns the burden, not the one who lacks belief" is it not?

What makes this true/truth?

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #114]

Then I hope more of your peers take his advice and get out of politics.

The problem for us is, the two groups still have massive influence in my society, despite their infighting.

Is it really a problem? Is this true/truth, or simply an expression created from the opposing position re the warfare I am pointing out.

The Confusion Of War...

What incontrovertible evidence has been produced which show one side of this conflict is correct and the other incorrect?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #114]

It is true that "the one who holds the beliefs who owns the burden

No! If I simply believe Jesus rose from the dead and go on to explain why I believe as I do based upon the evidence, I have no burden to demonstrate.

Why is "we as agnostic doesn't have the burden of proof" acceptable, but " we as atheists (according to a certain definition) doesn't have the burden of proof" problematic?

That is not a problem as I have already explained. The problem is, (whether atheist or agnostic) claiming to have no belief, while attempting to place the burden upon one who holds a belief. A person does not own a burden simply because they believe. Rather, the burden rests upon those who make claims.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #114]

It is true that "the one who holds the beliefs who owns the burden, not the one who lacks belief" is it not?

What makes this true/truth?

That depends on whether one accepts the rules of logic or not. If one does not, they can obviously not appeal to logic when presenting their opinions.

I've long been arguing that Logic is not just a human invention but, like mathematics, has practical basis. Take one stone and and another stone and you have two stones. This is a natural law that always obtains and all that mathematics is, is a language applied to it. Just as wah means water and ug means earth and it is an invented language applied to two things that are what they are and never each other (though ughwah could mean a muddy puddle .

So Occam's razor has come in for a lot of stick because on the face of it, it is an arbitrary rule to allow any kind of discussion to happen at all. But my 'bush and boulder' mind experiment (Which I'll repeat if need be) shows in practical ways how the explanation that requires the least number of logical entities is the one to be preferred (1).

So the burden of proof is a bit like the principle of Parsimony (Occam's razor). The boulder obscures the bush, but that the bush is still there is more in accordance with the way the world works than it winks out of existence every time it is out of sight (which is why logically the hypothesis that the tree is still in the forest if no -one is there to see it is the preferable one). And that one has to come up with some good reason to think that the tree or bush winks out of existence when unobserved (which is approaching where the burden of proof lies) if they make that claim, is a logical rule based in practicality.

Thus I'd suggest that the burden of proof being valid in such obvious practical examples, it also applies in less obvious ones, such as claiming the existence of gods. And come to think of it, the materialist default is just the same idea as the bush and the boulder. The way the world works is known to science and no evidence for a god has been demonstrated. Despite some very strenuous efforts by Theists. Therefore Occam's razor and the burden of proof in a very practical way is on those who claim there is 'Something More' (e.g The supernatural, ET Aliens, gods).

That it can't be proven that the bush or tree does not wink out of existence is a far less likely possibility and is not a practical or credible hypothesis, even if it is an undisprovable possibility. The materialist default (which I repeat is not a claim that nothing but the material can exist, but only that nothing but the material is known to exist) thus pushes in a logical and practical way the burden of proof onto those who are claiming anything else. Undisproven possibilities just as appeal to unknowns is logically and indeed practically invalid and untenable. And that's all that non -belief in the god -claim requires.

As to 'True', this is technically never 100% sure and demand that it should be before it is credited is neither helpful nor logically or practically valid. We know (on overwhelming evidence) that the pyramids exist, though nobody can be 100% sure that this is so, even those who have seen them can't be sure it isn't a hologram in an alien computer or some fake perpetrated by Satan for no obvious reason. It is not only necessary but based in reality that we accept things (on a sliding scale of credibility) as plausible, credible and reliable (pending confirmation)when supported by the evidence, and it isn't a question of Faith or not, but of evidence and credibility. And when the evidence points heavily one way, the burden of proof falls on the one who claims it is otherwise to make their case, because the case for the more plausible hypothesis is, of course, already made.

(1) sometimes the Holmes dictum 'when the impossible has been eliminated, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth' and the dictum 'evidence of absence is not necessarily absence of evidence' come into conflict. But both are true - so far as they go. The distinction or arbiter is Unknowns For the Holmes dictum to be valid you have to know all the parameters (within logical reason (2). On the other hand if you don't know all the parameters, you cannot say what it impossible. Thus the fact that we haven't found E.T aliens doesn't mean they aren't there, but the absence of any settlement in strata between Iron age and Saxon means the Romans weren't in that particular place (in that case absence of evidence where the whole site has been excavated IS evidence of absence - e.g No 1st c Nazareth). The implication for the evidence for or against a Biblical flood in known geology is obvious, and the lack of any credible record of Jesus in histories of the time at least a talking -point.

(1) (it's never -ending) e.g the banana in the drawer. If it isn't seen in the drawer the parameters are known - the banana is not in the drawer (the possibility that it becomes invisible when anyone looks inside being logically and practically without credibility or merit though technically undisprovable). But that you can't find the banana in the house though you looked 'everywhere' does not eliminate the credible possibility that it is somewhere you haven't seen it - especially if there is indirect evidence that you should still have a banana lying about.

Thus Fermi's paradox (to which 'evidence of absence relates) can be argued to mean that alien races Ought to exist, even if we haven't found them. Just as the indirect evidence argues for Abiogenesis even though the Proof hasn't been found and may never be found, as the preferable hypothesis to Goddunnit..

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #119]

The way the world works is known to science and no evidence for a god has been demonstrated.

It has yet to be demonstrated that nature is NOT the expression of a god.