A Gutsy Preacher

[Josiah]

I learned that I am an atheist without making any positive claim

FRIEND, obviously, it makes no difference whether a proposition is positive or negative - it STILL is a proposition, a position, an article - and as you note, has a "burden of proof." Come on, Mark!

"There is NO life on Mars!" is no less a position, a proposition than "There IS life on Mars!" And friend - again - neither of these may be combined concurrently with Agnosticism: "I am NEUTRAL on whether there is life on Mars - neither position is affirmed or denied" such is nonsensical, illogical and contradictive. "Obama WAS born in the USA" "Obama was NOT born in the USA!" are equally positions, equally have a burden of proof even though one is framed positively and one negatively. Come on, Mark! And NEITHER position is: "Neutral - no stance - neither is denied or affirmed."


Friend, it's just a game of dodge ball to insist, "I hold that 'THERE IS NO LIFE ON MARS!" and so my position is exempt from any burden of proof but the one holding the opposite proposition that "THERE IS LIFE ON MARS!" has a full burden of proof and must PROVE that's the case!"



- Josiah


.

 

[MarkFL]

Again:

Position 1: I claim there is life on Mars. I have a burden or proof.
Position 2: I accept the claim that there is life on Mars although I do not claim to know it for a fact because there is no compelling evidence to which I can point. I have no burden of proof.
Position 3: I reject the claim that there is life on Mars because of lack of compelling evidence, and this is the default position for such claims. I have no burden of proof.
Position 4: I claim there is no life on Mars. I have a burden or proof.

You doggedly insist on illegitimately combining positions 2 and 3 into 1 non-position when they are clearly distinct and positions themselves, and I and others have tried to get you to see this. You also claim that this is a deception, but it is simply a fact that only if you make a positive claim (positions 1 and 4) do you carry any burden of proof.

 

[Josiah]

it is simply a fact that only if you make a positive claim do you carry any burden of proof.

Clearly, it is not, my esteemed friend.

Obviously, it makes no difference whether a proposition is positive or negative - it STILL is a proposition, a position, an article - and as you note, has a "burden of proof." Come on, Mark! "There is NO life on Mars!" is no less a position, a proposition than "There IS life on Mars!" And friend - again - neither of these may be combined concurrently with Agnosticism: "I am NEUTRAL on whether there is life on Mars - neither position is affirmed or denied" such is nonsensical, illogical and contradictive. "Obama WAS born in the USA" "Obama was NOT born in the USA!" are equally positions, equally have a burden of proof even though one is framed positively and one negatively. Come on, Mark! And NEITHER position is: "Neutral - no stance - neither is denied or affirmed."

Friend, it's just a game of dodge ball to insist, "I hold that 'THERE IS NO LIFE ON MARS!" and so my position is exempt from any burden of proof but the one holding the opposite proposition that "THERE IS LIFE ON MARS!" has a full burden of proof and must PROVE that's the case!" Framing the position in the negative does NOT exempt the position, the declaration from the "burden of proof."

I'm really surprised we're having this discussion, that you would deny this.

Position 3: I reject the claim that there is life on Mars because of lack of compelling evidence, and this is the default position for such claims. I have no burden of proof.

Which is it? You can't dodge back and forth in order to evade the issue of burden of proof. Do you reject that there is life on Mars or are you neutral? Yes - if you make AND reject no claims - you are neutral, you embrace and deny no position - you are Agnostic and have no burden of proof. But you are ALSO taking a position - there is no life on Mars.

No, the "default position" is not negative. If my position is neutrality on the issue of life on Mars (Agnosticism), that does NOT mean ERGO my position is that there is NOT life on Mars. Those actually are mutually exclusive positions, not defaults. If I don't have a position on whether Obama was born in the USA or not, that does not mandate that ERGO my position is that he was not. It more likely means I hold that neither position has sufficient evidence or "proof" but whatever the basis for my agnosticism, it's odd (and nonsensical) to mandate that ERGO the negative is thus held. That only eliminates Agnosticism - you are simply "stripping" it of meaning too. BTW, Agnosticism includes the stance of "undecided." But again, "undecided" is not the same as "NOT that position."



- Josiah


.

 

[MarkFL]

LOL. I'm done.

 

[Rens]

Lol everyone has a different opinion on it. Reading a discussion on a Dutch forum. Says an agnostic to an atheist: atheism is a belief system, only agnosticism is not.
Lol one guy said: put a bunch of different theists in a room and let them define the defenition of theism. Then quietly walk out of the door.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Theism is belief in God (or gods etc).

 

[Rens]

Theism is belief in God (or gods etc).

I once talked with an extreme muslim on a forum. He didn't even believe in Allah. He just kept the rules. Weird.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I once talked with an extreme muslim on a forum. He didn't even believe in Allah. He just kept the rules. Weird.

Weird but safe in a religion where apostasy is an executable offence.

 

[Rens]

Well Josiah, Ceilingworm, a Dutch agnostic, thinks you're right lol. Another one says atheism is about belief and agnosticism is about knowing, thus he's both. He doesn't know and he isn't convinced that God exists, so he doesn't believe, but he does not believe that God does not exist, an agnostic atheist.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Well Josiah, Ceilingworm, a Dutch agnostic, thinks you're right lol. Another one says atheism is about belief and agnosticism is about knowing, thus he's both. He doesn't know and he isn't convinced that God exists, so he doesn't believe, but he does not believe that God does not exist, an agnostic atheist.

That means he believes.

Double negative.

Just sayin

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Rens]

That means he believes.

Double negative.

Just sayin

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

So he's a believer?

 

[Rens]

Just speak faith and call them all a not yet theist LOL.

 

[popsthebuilder]

So he's a believer?

According to the double negative; yes.

But sounds like a complex way to attempt to explain agnosticism.

He doesn't know and can't say for certain that GOD doesn't exist... logically or justifiably.



Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

Well Josiah, Ceilingworm, a Dutch agnostic, thinks you're right lol.

LOL

Another one says atheism is about belief and agnosticism is about knowing, thus he's both.

Atheism is a POSITION (verbs can't be, "believe" is not a position).
Atheism is a dogmatic declaration: GOD IS NOT.
It is as much as position, a declaration, an article as is its antithesis, Theism: GOD IS.
Agnosticism is a non-position, it's being neutral - denying and affirming neither.
Simple.

I think we'd had confirmed why - quite recently - a few have had a felt need to "STRIP" (the word they use) these words of their meaning and combine Atheism and Agnosticism - holding to both, concurrently, equally: so that the Atheist can bail from the issue of proof, can claim the issue of proof doesn't apply to the GOD IS NOT position but does to the GOD IS position. We were told the reason for this is to have one side held to a "burden of proof" and the other exempt. This allows the Atheist to continue the raging attacks on Theists, the DEMAND for objective and absolute proof for the position GOD IS while the Atheist can insist he has no burden of proof for his position. I find that intellectually dishonest.


Now, I HAD thought the point of this was to be that actually, in the uber-philosophical sense, no one (theist or atheist) can objectively, absolutely PROVE their position in this matter.... in a very extreme sense, we're all agnostics, we ALL (in a sense) walk by faith, we ALL choose our faith. But I was very wrong in that. It's all about why Atheists can continue their attacks, their mockery, their ridicule and their demands for objective, absolute PROOF using only evidence that excludes the supernatural.... while they can dodge all accountability, any burden of proof.


Personally, I sincerely doubt that's Mark's desire. I can find NOTHING he has ever posted in the past year or so that indicates that he is an Atheist at all (everything he's posted is classic Agnosticism) and he has never displayed this hatred and ridicule so common of Atheists. But I DO think the folks that invented this new 4th position, this new label of "Atheist - Agnostic" do, that IS their purpose - as Mark seems to confirm and as Tigger (a former Atheist) earlier speculated.


- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Believer is a noun as is Christian, one presumes that Josiah is both a Christian and a believer thus he has a position, right?

 

[Josiah]

Atheism is a POSITION (verbs can't be, "believe" is not a position).
Atheism is a dogmatic declaration: GOD IS NOT.
It is as much as position, a declaration, an article as is its antithesis, Theism: GOD IS.
Agnosticism is a non-position, it's being neutral - denying and affirming neither.
Simple.

I think we'd had confirmed why - quite recently - a few have had a felt need to "STRIP" (the word they use) these words of their meaning and combine Atheism and Agnosticism - holding to both, concurrently, equally: so that the Atheist can bail from the issue of proof, can claim the issue of proof doesn't apply to the GOD IS NOT position but does to the GOD IS position. We were told the reason for this is to have one side held to a "burden of proof" and the other exempt. This allows the Atheist to continue the raging attacks on Theists, the DEMAND for objective and absolute proof for the position GOD IS while the Atheist can insist he has no burden of proof for his position. I find that intellectually dishonest.


Now, I HAD thought the point of this was to be that actually, in the uber-philosophical sense, no one (theist or atheist) can objectively, absolutely PROVE their position in this matter.... in a very extreme sense, we're all agnostics, we ALL (in a sense) walk by faith, we ALL choose our faith. But I was very wrong in that. It's all about why Atheists can continue their attacks, their mockery, their ridicule and their demands for objective, absolute PROOF using only evidence that excludes the supernatural.... while they can dodge all accountability, any burden of proof.


Personally, I sincerely doubt that's Mark's desire. I can find NOTHING he has ever posted in the past year or so that indicates that he is an Atheist at all (everything he's posted is classic Agnosticism) and he has never displayed this hatred and ridicule so common of Atheists. But I DO think the folks that invented this new 4th position, this new label of "Atheist - Agnostic" do, that IS their purpose - as Mark seems to confirm and as Tigger (a former Atheist) earlier speculated.


.

Believer is a noun as is Christian, one presumes that Josiah is both a Christian and a believer thus he has a position, right?

Believer is a noun, believe is a verb. As you know, I addressed the issue of "believe" the verb, suggesting that as such it is not a position.
But as a noun, it still needs definition, after all an Atheist is a believer too - embracing (believing) a position, that there is no divine.

But again, I think you are attempting to muddy things. Read the post.



- Josiah

 

[Rens]

LOL







Atheism is a POSITION (verbs can't be, "believe" is not a position).
Atheism is a dogmatic declaration: GOD IS NOT.
It is as much as position, a declaration, an article as is its antithesis, Theism: GOD IS.
Agnosticism is a non-position, it's being neutral - denying and affirming neither.
Simple.

I think we'd had confirmed why - quite recently - a few have had a felt need to "STRIP" (the word they use) these words of their meaning and combine Atheism and Agnosticism - holding to both, concurrently, equally: so that the Atheist can bail from the issue of proof, can claim the issue of proof doesn't apply to the GOD IS NOT position but does to the GOD IS position. We were told the reason for this is to have one side held to a "burden of proof" and the other exempt. This allows the Atheist to continue the raging attacks on Theists, the DEMAND for objective and absolute proof for the position GOD IS while the Atheist can insist he has no burden of proof for his position. I find that intellectually dishonest.


Now, I HAD thought the point of this was to be that actually, in the uber-philosophical sense, no one (theist or atheist) can objectively, absolutely PROVE their position in this matter.... in a very extreme sense, we're all agnostics, we ALL (in a sense) walk by faith, we ALL choose our faith. But I was very wrong in that. It's all about why Atheists can continue their attacks, their mockery, their ridicule and their demands for objective, absolute PROOF using only evidence that excludes the supernatural.... while they can dodge all accountability, any burden of proof.


Personally, I sincerely doubt that's Mark's desire. I can find NOTHING he has ever posted in the past year or so that indicates that he is an Atheist at all (everything he's posted is classic Agnosticism) and he has never displayed this hatred and ridicule so common of Atheists. But I DO think the folks that invented this new 4th position, this new label of "Atheist - Agnostic" do, that IS their purpose - as Mark seems to confirm and as Tigger (a former Atheist) earlier speculated.


- Josiah



.

Not all atheists do that. Holland is full of normal atheists. The only ones I saw doing that were a few merely exchristians on forums. One guy, I liked him, he was a real oldfashioned atheist, to him it was utter nonsense and since he spoke with a collegue who was a JW he felt so sorry for those poor christians, he tried to talk some sense into us. He came to a christian forum pretending to be a hardcore legalistic christian, LOL, but I noticed immediately, because he didn't know the Bible texts. I didn't call him out, later the rest noticed and they banned him. Then I went to his forum and had a nice talk. Friendly guy, he was really concerned. He really tried to talk sense into me, but at last he gave up LOL. Neither did I succeed to convert him.

 

[MarkFL]

...I noticed immediately, because he didn't know the Bible texts...

It's been my experience that the average atheist knows the Bible better than the average Christian.

 

[Rens]

It's been my experience that the average atheist knows the Bible better than the average Christian.

Yes me too, I learned a lot of texts I had never heard of, but he knew nothing about it. He wasn't raised christian. He also thought Jehova's witnesses and christians were kinda the same thing. And religion was dangerous, look at ISIS, it's brainwashing. Ehmm, there is a tiny difference between me teaching my kids christian kids songs and how those radical muslims brainwash their kids.

 

[MarkFL]

Yes me too, but he knew nothing about it. He wasn't raised christian. He also thought Jehova's witnesses and christians were kinda the same thing.

Okay, now I understand what you meant too...you weren't saying you can spot all atheists by a lack of knowledge of Scripture, you were simply saying that someone who claims to be a Christian and doesn't know the Bible well is a sign they likely are not a Christian.