Author Topic: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism  (Read 34919 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #35 on: March 12, 2012, 06:23:57 PM »
Dude, we plain don't know what can exist outside of space time. Why is that causing you so much trouble?
Your arguments are like those "here be dragons" on ancient maps where they didn't know what was there.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #36 on: March 12, 2012, 06:34:33 PM »
All it's saying is that were a god to exist, the burden of proof lies in the believers, not the disbelievers, which is a pretty agreeable statement.
The burden of proof lies in both the theists and the atheists. The agnostics are the only ones that don't have to prove anything.
Not really. You need a reason to believe in something, but you don't need a reason not to believe in something. This is how the world works; life would be much harder if you had to convince yourself of every negative statement as well as every positive one.

The point here is that, yes, atheists are making a definitive statement and they should, like everyone else, be able to support what they believe. But if people are getting atheism confused with agnosticism, it's their fault that they have bad vocabularies. It doesn't mean anything about atheism as a whole, which has plenty of its own well-argued philosophical evidence.

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #37 on: March 12, 2012, 06:42:21 PM »
I completely agree with you brotha. I hold that agnosticism is the neutral stance, with atheism and theism on either side.

But agnosticism isn't a stance.  It's the measure of surety of a stance.

I don't believe in gods.  I'm an atheist.  I'm not sure there isn't a god, but that doesn't not make me an atheist.

The stance is that we cannot know. It's a stance. It's just not a claim as to whether or not there is a god, but that isn't required to be a stance.

It's not a theological stance.

Of course we cannot know.  To claim otherwise is foolish.  But given that you don't believe in gods, you're an atheist.  Whether you believe you can know or not doesn't matter.

I disagree. But it's really not important in the slightest bit. They're already discussing disembodied minds and the like.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #38 on: March 12, 2012, 06:44:05 PM »
Can you think of anything other than an unembodied mind and abstract objects that can exist outside of time and space?

Fading hope that a serious discourse involving philosophical concepts can be witnessed on this subforum  :millahhhh
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #39 on: March 12, 2012, 06:48:29 PM »
All it's saying is that were a god to exist, the burden of proof lies in the believers, not the disbelievers, which is a pretty agreeable statement.
The burden of proof lies in both the theists and the atheists. The agnostics are the only ones that don't have to prove anything.
Not really. You need a reason to believe in something, but you don't need a reason not to believe in something. This is how the world works; life would be much harder if you had to convince yourself of every negative statement as well as every positive one.

The point here is that, yes, atheists are making a definitive statement and they should, like everyone else, be able to support what they believe. But if people are getting atheism confused with agnosticism, it's their fault that they have bad vocabularies. It doesn't mean anything about atheism as a whole, which has plenty of its own well-argued philosophical evidence.
Yes I agree. But it's self-professed atheists who I'm concerned with. There are people who say "There is no God", yet upon further questioning, they don't offer any good reasons for having that belief. They'll offer a few nitpicky counterarguments for that argument that "there is a God", but nothing that reasonably proves there is no God.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #40 on: March 12, 2012, 06:51:15 PM »
Most people, atheists and theists alike, are bad at defending what they believe in. Your point?

EDIT: You targeted atheists here, but how many theists do you know that, if pressed to find out why they believe in God, would be able to come up with some coherent semblance of a proof? To be completely honest, I don't really get this thread.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 06:57:10 PM by theseoafs »

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #41 on: March 12, 2012, 06:53:49 PM »
All it's saying is that were a god to exist, the burden of proof lies in the believers, not the disbelievers, which is a pretty agreeable statement.
The burden of proof lies in both the theists and the atheists. The agnostics are the only ones that don't have to prove anything.
Not really. You need a reason to believe in something, but you don't need a reason not to believe in something. This is how the world works; life would be much harder if you had to convince yourself of every negative statement as well as every positive one.

The point here is that, yes, atheists are making a definitive statement and they should, like everyone else, be able to support what they believe. But if people are getting atheism confused with agnosticism, it's their fault that they have bad vocabularies. It doesn't mean anything about atheism as a whole, which has plenty of its own well-argued philosophical evidence.
Yes I agree. But it's self-professed atheists who I'm concerned with. There are people who say "There is no God", yet upon further questioning, they don't offer any good reasons for having that belief. They'll offer a few nitpicky counterarguments for that argument that "there is a God", but nothing that reasonably proves there is no God.

Atheists don't have to prove there is no god for the same reason that you don't have to prove that there's no great jelly bean that created everything.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #42 on: March 12, 2012, 07:14:38 PM »
Ok wait....

"You don't need a reason to not believe in something."


Ummmm....ok.      I don't believe in evolution.    I guess I don't need a reason. 



(although I do have reasons....but according to this, I don't need those reasons.   Ok...I guess.   :justjen )
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #43 on: March 12, 2012, 07:17:28 PM »
Obviously, when I said that, I was referring to the existence of something. Evolution isn't an entity like God is.

(Anyway, you better have a seriously good argument if you're going to say that evolution is false.)

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #44 on: March 12, 2012, 07:26:57 PM »
Obviously, when I said that, I was referring to the existence of something. Evolution isn't an entity like God is.


It is a theory that is treated like fact.   The *theory* exists....

But OK...if you want to play it that way.   

There are physical things in our universe that we see evidence of that we have NOT seen.     Heck, black holes were a theory for a *LOOOONG* time before we finally saw one.  (or, if memory serves, what we think is one)

Now, I'm not saying I don't believe in black holes...but that is a physical thing that we see evidence of, even if we havn't *ACTUALLY* seen one.   Are you saying I can just dismiss that with no reason whatsoever???

(and the black hole is a red herring...you can pick any other thing we have strong evidence for that we have not yet physically seen)
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #45 on: March 12, 2012, 07:30:32 PM »
^I don't really get this post. Of course, we can learn about things and infer their existence without actually seeing them. We do it all the time in science. I don't disagree with you and I don't understand why it contradicts my point, which is that people don't have to prove every negative possibility.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #46 on: March 12, 2012, 07:33:50 PM »
I'm saying that by the statement "You don't need a reason to NOT believe something"...I can not believe in ANY of those things, and not have a single reason for not believing it.

Which is silly...

I just can't believe that you're saying it. 
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #47 on: March 12, 2012, 07:37:14 PM »
Obviously, I'm not referring to things like black holes or rocks or fish, because only seriously disturbed people would suggest they don't exist. What I said applies only to the supernatural, because we were discussing the supernatural. You're getting hung up on one sentence, when you know I'm not trying to argue that people who don't believe in fish are justified.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #48 on: March 12, 2012, 07:44:32 PM »
But I'm not talking about rocks or fish.   I am talking about *things we have not seen yet*....

You see...to a theist...God is every bit as real.   Something we see undeniable evidence of all around us...but we cannot actually see him...only evidence of him.   To *US* he is *EXACTLY* like those scientific phenomena that science says ARE real...even though they havn't actually seen it yet. 

Even if you don't believe that...put the shoe on the other foot for just one second.   To us...you are like a man who denies the existence of black holes because you havn't seen one.   

And for the record, I'm not sure I terribly agree with the term "supernatural" anyway.  It implies a magician who defies every law of nature and physics.  I simply believe that God is a master scientist...and he can do things with science that our scientists could not possibly *dream* of...because he is (and will always be) so many light years ahead of any of us, or all of us put together.  Everything he's ever done (even the miracles, that I believe are real) are simply the work of a master scientist. 

Sorry, that last paragraph drifted a bit...but I hope I made my point.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #49 on: March 12, 2012, 07:48:12 PM »
Supernatural means beyond nature. Your god is by definition beyond nature, thus it is supernatural.


Sorry, just felt like clarifying that. Despite disagreeing with most else of what you said.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #50 on: March 12, 2012, 07:49:26 PM »
Supernatural means beyond nature. Your god is by definition beyond nature, thus it is supernatural.


Sorry, just felt like clarifying that. Despite disagreeing with most else of what you said.

What is it about the concept of God that is "beyond nature"...could you clarify that definition?
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #51 on: March 12, 2012, 07:50:14 PM »
Supernatural means beyond nature. Your god is by definition beyond nature, thus it is supernatural.


Sorry, just felt like clarifying that. Despite disagreeing with most else of what you said.

What is it about the concept of God that is "beyond nature"...could you clarify that definition?

Nature is timely, physically bound and constricted to the laws....of nature. As far as I know, your god isn't at all bound by the laws of nature.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #52 on: March 12, 2012, 07:55:22 PM »
Supernatural means beyond nature. Your god is by definition beyond nature, thus it is supernatural.


Sorry, just felt like clarifying that. Despite disagreeing with most else of what you said.

What is it about the concept of God that is "beyond nature"...could you clarify that definition?

Nature is timely, physically bound and constricted to the laws....of nature. As far as I know, your god isn't at all bound by the laws of nature.


He is only bound by the limits he sets for himself. 

He created "the laws of nature"...so he is bound by those laws.   HOWEVER....since we still have a limited understanding of those laws, I believe he is capable of doing things we don't understand...yet.     

Take for instance the parting of the Red Sea.   Did you know that they were able to recreate that phenomenon in a lab?   I don't remember exactly how they did it, but I do know they did separate a body of water down the middle. 

Now that's not to say that God necessarily did it that way...it's just *one of the ways* he *could* have done it.   And we have just recently started to understand how he MAY have done it.    Things that were not always understood, are now being clarified.    Science.   You see what I mean??
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #53 on: March 12, 2012, 07:56:22 PM »
That's an interesting point. Sorry it took me a few posts to understand what you were getting at, but that's a clever interjection, and it does make sense to me.

Just because you see supernatural significance (as you call it, "undeniable evidence") in the world around you, however, doesn't mean everyone does. In fact, if there were so much undeniable evidence for the existence of god as you claim, we wouldn't be having this conversation because god would have been proven to exist. The difference here is that theists have proven unable to come up with an extremely convincing, undeniable proof of god's existence. That proof will never be offered. If it were, then the burden of proof would be on the atheists, because they have disbelief in something that has been proven to be true. As it stands, however, theists haven't definitively proven their position to be true, and until then nonbelievers don't have to prove anything.

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #54 on: March 12, 2012, 07:57:49 PM »
Ok Jammindude, no. Sorry. I don't even believe in god, but your definition seems off.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Rina

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1515
  • Gender: Female
  • ~
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #55 on: March 12, 2012, 07:59:17 PM »
He isn't bound by any limits therefore making him Supernatural by that definition. He sets his own limits, so to speak, so you're both making the same point.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #56 on: March 12, 2012, 08:10:58 PM »
That's an interesting point. Sorry it took me a few posts to understand what you were getting at, but that's a clever interjection, and it does make sense to me.

Just because you see supernatural significance (as you call it, "undeniable evidence") in the world around you, however, doesn't mean everyone does. In fact, if there were so much undeniable evidence for the existence of god as you claim, we wouldn't be having this conversation because god would have been proven to exist. The difference here is that theists have proven unable to come up with an extremely convincing, undeniable proof of god's existence. That proof will never be offered. If it were, then the burden of proof would be on the atheists, because they have disbelief in something that has been proven to be true. As it stands, however, theists haven't definitively proven their position to be true, and until then nonbelievers don't have to prove anything.

In science....order *never* spontaneously arises from chaos.  Not without the help of an intelligent force guiding it.    Now...this is an old argument...but I think it's a valid one.

But lest we get off track, I'm still trying to point out that, at the end of the day, one thing holds true.

Each side presents their evidence, and every person makes an educated decision based on the line of evidence that they believe is the most rock solid.     I don't view one side as being better than the other...provided that NEITHER side operate on *blind faith*...(something that I think exists on both sides).   
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #57 on: March 12, 2012, 08:12:43 PM »
Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #58 on: March 12, 2012, 08:23:18 PM »
He is only bound by the limits he sets for himself. 

He created "the laws of nature"...so he is bound by those laws.   HOWEVER....since we still have a limited understanding of those laws, I believe he is capable of doing things we don't understand...yet.     

Jammindude, I'm afraid you're misspeaking here. God, by definition, is not bound by any laws, much less the laws of the universe He created. God's omnipresence lends itself to allow Him to do whatsoever He desires. It would be silly to think that God, having created the laws and set the constants of the universe, would then be bound by them. If God so chooses, He can do presumably anything (parting seas, turning water into wine, etc) He so desires.

At about this point, some intellectually underprivileged atheists like to retort "ok, can God then create a stone so big He cannot lift?" Yet this allows the theist to clarify: God cannot do the logically absurd, like create a square circle, for example, or a married bachelor, because these things are merely an incoherent pairing of words which don't make much sense.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #59 on: March 12, 2012, 08:24:01 PM »
Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
Yes they do. If you make any claim of any kind, you have to back it up. That's the way claims work.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #60 on: March 12, 2012, 08:25:56 PM »
Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
Yes they do. If you make any claim of any kind, you have to back it up. That's the way claims work.

No you don't. Would you make a claim that there isn't a great jelly bean that governs all of the universe? If you believe that a great jelly bean doesn't exist, do you have to prove it? Do you have to prove unicorns don't exist? What about honest politicians? Do you have to prove they don't exist?
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #61 on: March 12, 2012, 08:29:59 PM »
Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
Yes they do. If you make any claim of any kind, you have to back it up. That's the way claims work.
Let's say you endorse the Christian religion, and you believe the God of Abraham exists, and the only supernatural being is the god of Abraham.

This is making a claim. Obviously you should have some support for your belief in the Christian religion. But you don't also have to prove that the Muslim god doesn't exist, or that Thor doesn't exist, or that a great jelly bean doesn't exist. That's not the way religion works. You do not have to prove disbelief.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #62 on: March 12, 2012, 08:37:10 PM »
Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
Yes they do. If you make any claim of any kind, you have to back it up. That's the way claims work.

No you don't. Would you make a claim that there isn't a great jelly bean that governs all of the universe? If you believe that a great jelly bean doesn't exist, do you have to prove it? Do you have to prove unicorns don't exist? What about honest politicians? Do you have to prove they don't exist?
Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
Yes they do. If you make any claim of any kind, you have to back it up. That's the way claims work.
Let's say you endorse the Christian religion, and you believe the God of Abraham exists, and the only supernatural being is the god of Abraham.

This is making a claim. Obviously you should have some support for your belief in the Christian religion. But you don't also have to prove that the Muslim god doesn't exist, or that Thor doesn't exist, or that a great jelly bean doesn't exist. That's not the way religion works. You do not have to prove disbelief.
I don't believe in a jelly bean man not because of the absence of evidence of a great jelly bean, but because of the presence of evidence of the Christian God (who is not a jelly bean).
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #63 on: March 12, 2012, 08:37:27 PM »
Also, can we please stop talking about the individual types of gods here? I'm sure there's a place for "Well, our god would do this and not do that" but in this thread I'd like to focus on the general concepts of God that are required by logic, such as being outside time and space. Things like "God chose to bind himself to nature's laws" are really not demanded by philosophy but more individual characteristics of the God of your choice.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #64 on: March 12, 2012, 08:49:36 PM »
That's an interesting point. Sorry it took me a few posts to understand what you were getting at, but that's a clever interjection, and it does make sense to me.

Just because you see supernatural significance (as you call it, "undeniable evidence") in the world around you, however, doesn't mean everyone does. In fact, if there were so much undeniable evidence for the existence of god as you claim, we wouldn't be having this conversation because god would have been proven to exist. The difference here is that theists have proven unable to come up with an extremely convincing, undeniable proof of god's existence. That proof will never be offered. If it were, then the burden of proof would be on the atheists, because they have disbelief in something that has been proven to be true. As it stands, however, theists haven't definitively proven their position to be true, and until then nonbelievers don't have to prove anything.

In science....order *never* spontaneously arises from chaos.  Not without the help of an intelligent force guiding it.    Now...this is an old argument...but I think it's a valid one.

But lest we get off track, I'm still trying to point out that, at the end of the day, one thing holds true.


wut

I can't wrap my head around this one.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline BlobVanDam

  • Future Boy
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 38940
  • Gender: Male
  • Transform and rock out!
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #65 on: March 12, 2012, 10:38:17 PM »
Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
Yes they do. If you make any claim of any kind, you have to back it up. That's the way claims work.

That only applies when you're disputing something that is already accepted as proven. Since a God hasn't been proven in the first place, the way I see it that's where the burden of proof lies, if anywhere. You don't need to disprove something that can't be proven. In fact, you can't, which makes it a futile argument in both directions.

Not that I'm saying theists need to prove anything to anyone. I accept faith as a perfectly valid reason to believe, but I don't accept it as proof that needs to be disputed to believe otherwise either.
Only King could mis-spell a LETTER.
Yep. I think the only party in the MP/DT situation that hasn't moved on is DTF.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #66 on: March 12, 2012, 10:45:13 PM »
Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
Yes they do. If you make any claim of any kind, you have to back it up. That's the way claims work.

That only applies when you're disputing something that is already accepted as proven. Since a God hasn't been proven in the first place, the way I see it that's where the burden of proof lies, if anywhere. You don't need to disprove something that can't be proven. In fact, you can't, which makes it a futile argument in both directions.

Not that I'm saying theists need to prove anything to anyone. I accept faith as a perfectly valid reason to believe, but I don't accept it as proof that needs to be disputed to believe otherwise either.
I could easily reverse the statement and say, "Since the nonexistence of God hasn't been proven in the first place, that's where the burden of proof lies."

Burden of proof lies with the person making a claim. Whether that claim is for existence of something or for nonexistence of something is irrelevant to the fact that a claim needs to be backed up.
 
The best example I can think of right now is the existence of extraterrestrial life. We have no evidence for it, but none against it. Extraterretrial life is philosophically and scientifically possible, so there's no reason we should reject it on those grounds. But many scientists and people are open about extraterrestrial life, and would consider themselves agnostic on the issue, and they are right to do so.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 15690
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm just a man, thrown into existence by the gods
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #67 on: March 12, 2012, 10:54:08 PM »
Also, can we please stop talking about the individual types of gods here? I'm sure there's a place for "Well, our god would do this and not do that" but in this thread I'd like to focus on the general concepts of God that are required by logic, such as being outside time and space. Things like "God chose to bind himself to nature's laws" are really not demanded by philosophy but more individual characteristics of the God of your choice.

But all religions have a creator god and many subgods/angels. If we're all one then we all believe in the same thing, which is love, respect and compassion. it's just in different ways which each one of us helps the world keep spinning.
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man
Follow my Spotify:BjamminD

Offline BlobVanDam

  • Future Boy
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 38940
  • Gender: Male
  • Transform and rock out!
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #68 on: March 12, 2012, 11:19:21 PM »
Okay. Atheists still don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
Yes they do. If you make any claim of any kind, you have to back it up. That's the way claims work.

That only applies when you're disputing something that is already accepted as proven. Since a God hasn't been proven in the first place, the way I see it that's where the burden of proof lies, if anywhere. You don't need to disprove something that can't be proven. In fact, you can't, which makes it a futile argument in both directions.

Not that I'm saying theists need to prove anything to anyone. I accept faith as a perfectly valid reason to believe, but I don't accept it as proof that needs to be disputed to believe otherwise either.
I could easily reverse the statement and say, "Since the nonexistence of God hasn't been proven in the first place, that's where the burden of proof lies."

Burden of proof lies with the person making a claim. Whether that claim is for existence of something or for nonexistence of something is irrelevant to the fact that a claim needs to be backed up.
 
The best example I can think of right now is the existence of extraterrestrial life. We have no evidence for it, but none against it. Extraterretrial life is philosophically and scientifically possible, so there's no reason we should say "Extraterrestrial life is nonexistent." In fact, many scientists are open about extraterrestrial life, and would consider themselves agnostic on the issue.

But why does the non-existence of God need to be proven any more than proving there is a God, when that was never proven to begin with? As you said, burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, especially one so bold as the concept of God. Just because many people believe it, doesn't mean it can be assumed or proven.

I see the "neutral" state as either agnostic, or atheist, but not theist. I can see validity to the assertion that atheism is neutral, since I believe that is our born state. We don't believe in God until we're taught about it in some form. I can also see the argument that agnosticism is our natural state, since it's not decisive in either direction.

As an agnostic myself (leaning heavily towards not believing in the concept of God, although not believing that is a fact), I actually agree with many points you make in the OP. Absence of evidence isn't actually evidence of absence, so I'm not personally saying "there is no God until you prove it to me". My personal stance is "I believe there may or may not be a God, but until I see some compelling evidence, I believe there likely isn't". But if an atheist says "there is no God until you prove it to me", I consider that a perfectly legitimate argument too.
Fence sitting ftw. :lol
Only King could mis-spell a LETTER.
Yep. I think the only party in the MP/DT situation that hasn't moved on is DTF.

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #69 on: March 12, 2012, 11:52:51 PM »
It seems like no one understood me saying that theists need faith to stand on.  You cannot believe in God unless you take a leap of faith.  You need to believe in something that has absolutely no proof whatsoever.  There is 0% proof that God exists.  Yet people still believe it.  This is like me saying I believe Unicorns exist because I have faith.  It is literally the same exact thing.

Now, I am not ruling out the possibility that some kind of god exists.  But I don't know what god is.  I don't know how to define god.  But if you ask me, he doesn't look like us.  he doesn't think.  It's not even a he or a she.  I'm thinking something closer to The Force from starwars as god.  Something like that.  The laws of physics could be god for all I know.  Either way, I'm pretty sure that the Christian god does not exist.  It smells way too much like a human fantasy to me.

My personal feelings aside, there is no proof god exists yet people still believe.  That is faith working.  Not proof. 
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?